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

A badge of honor . . . leftwing cretins at Youtube banning me for 7 days for a video that quotes 2 peer reviewed articles saying cloth masks don’t work.

If you want to see the banned video go to Liberty Tree https://t.co/gsTUwuLZGL

— Senator Rand Paul (@RandPaul) August 10, 2021

Responding to the ban, Paul said:

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

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

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

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

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

Paul also said:

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

What alternatives?

Has he not heard of the Daily Stormer?

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

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

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

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

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

We are made in the image of God!

We have the ability for rational thought!

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

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

Why do Republicans consistently support their own political disenfranchisement?

What’s going on?

Someone must have wondered at some point what forcing people to pay taxes and stop driving and eating meat based on a completely fantastical theory that it will change the weather has to do with “the workers.” In actual reality, global warming is a series of taxes designed specifically to gut the working and middle classes. And yet, we find that everyone who believes in socialism appears to believe in global warming.

Why?

This is an interesting question on its face, but it’s also interesting in relation to the conservative belief that being dominated by international corporations that decide what you can say and think is “freedom.” Because when you ask “why would people who support the worker support impoverishing him?” you would also ask “why would people who value self-reliance and small businesses support mega-corporations dominating society?”

You could go into something about how leftists know that in order for their programs to work, everyone has to be poor, so they actually want to purposefully make people poor. That is true for the big thinking leftists, but they are a fraction of the leftist population (virtually every intellectual involved in politics is either on the right or is a Jewish liar promoting utopian gibberish).

The first explanation would be “because everything is a bunch of bullshit.” But that’s a little bit too easy.

The second explanation is that mother earth worship is feminine, and the left tends to be feminine, while the right masculine. That’s something obvious that we talk about on here a lot, but somehow when Paul Gottfried asked the question about what he called “belief clusters,” he didn’t bother to note the obvious masculine/feminine dichotomy of modern politics.

So I guess I should take a minute to elaborate on why this is.

Men tend to prize independence, whereas women prefer collectivism and central authority. This is because every man is a leader, to some extent, in that he leads his own family. So even when a man is a part of a hierarchy, where he is on the lower rank of it, he still values independence, naturally. A man who is a leader of other men recognizes that they are all leaders in their own homes, and he respects that, and speaks to the lower members of his hierarchy in the same tone of voice, and using the same words, as he speaks to the higher members. A man understands a man being in authority over him, because he is an authority in his household, and so a lower member of a hierarchy respects the decisions of the higher members as he hopes his wife and children will respect his own decisions.

Women, on the other hand are not naturally leaders, so when they get together in a group, they do things by consensus opinion. They are also cruel and vindictive with other women, and do not value responsibility and fairness or clearly thought-through arguments. Everything is about their feelings. Instead of nodding and getting down to business, women continually give each other false compliments, and talk in circles about gibber in order to express the fact that they approve of each other as part of a collective. You can see this in the film “Mean Girls,” which I always recommend everyone watch in order to better understand women (it is one of the very few honest portrayals in film).

At least according to what we’re being told, a full 80% of white men voted for Donald Trump over Joe Biden, while the number of white women is being give as 55%. The women who did vote for Trump, you would find, are women who are married and/or have a strong relationship with their fathers. They view Trump as an extension of that male authority.

The coronavirus was the main issue of the election, and that was a pure masculine/feminine dichotomy, with the male view being that people should be allowed to make their own choices and that we can’t overturn the entire order of rights in society and the female view being that the government is your mommy and the Constitution is just a piece of paper like any other. Obviously, men are also more likely to look into the actual data surrounding this flu, and find that it’s all a hoax, while the women get drawn into the emotional spectacle of it, and this whole “we’re all in it together” thing. Further, women will just generally listen to the media a lot more, because they view it as a public consensus announcement service, and it’s very important to them that they be in line with that consensus.

Understanding the difference of men and women, you can understand why right is male brained and left is female brained. If it’s taking a minute to recognize where global warming fits into that: just look at all of the women that get involved in the occult, palm reading, fortune telling, and so on. Spiritualism in general is typically feminine, and various spirit cults are the only place anywhere in history before the 20th century where you are going to find women in charge. Global warming is a kind of mother earth nonsense occult belief. “Listening to the planet” is a phrase you repeatedly hear with these people. A man’s response would be “I’m listening, woman and it ain’t talking – it’s dirt and rocks and it doesn’t have a mouth.”

Meanwhile “the government doesn’t have any right to tell anybody what to do” is something that appeals to masculine sensibilities.

However, here’s the thing: “driving cars and eating meat is changing the weather” and “multinational corporations shouldn’t be regulated by the government at all” are both very, very specific and specifically weird beliefs.

Leftists could just as easily be promoting open wizardry and occultism with ghosts and ouija boards, and say the world was going to end because we weren’t allowing women to “free bleed” during menstruation, which was causing a blockage in the spiritual energies of the universe, and have the global goal of ridding the world of tampons before dark spirts suck us all into a tube in the sky. Instead, it’s the weather thing, and the solution is taxes on the middle class and forcing everyone to eat bugs.

Rightists could just as easily be demanding child marriage and an end to women being schooled or taught to read. The entire education system could easily be a target for right-wingers, and they could be saying “girl should be getting ready for marriage, and boys should be put to work.” Instead, they focused specifically on promoting the idea that wealthy people be able to act without any kind of regulations, allowing a tiny elite minority to suck up all the wealth and dominate society completely.

The explanations for both things is that there is an agenda behind everything, and democracy allows for a seemingly counterintuitive progression of society.

If you were a group who was planning the future, and you envisioned a situation where the middle class was abolished, people were stripped of their basic rights, and a tiny elite minority ruled over everyone and forced them to eat bugs, you would have a very hard time selling people on that. The peasants have always had some form of rights, going back to the Middle Ages. And even during the industrial revolution, we started to develop the idea of social mobility. Having freedom and economic prosperity are typically things that both the right and left would agree are universally good in nature.

So what they did was create “rider” agendas to attach to both right and left, that the democracy process could itself be used to explain. A “rider” is what they call a totally different topic that gets attached to a bill in congress. Like if the bill is about spending for roads, it includes a passage about how Israel gets more access to our intelligence. It’s often the way they push through things that wouldn’t otherwise be popular.

People generally sign up for one thing or the other. If somebody says A, B, C and D, and you really feel strongly about A, B and C, you’re going to go along with D without thinking too much about it, generally. If right-wingers started thinking about the fallout of free trade, they got the whole spiel about regulations progressing toward communism. Left-wingers are obviously less likely to ask questions, but if they do wonder what eating bugs has to do with “the workers,” they’re shown the hockey stick graph which says if we don’t eat bugs, we’re all going to burn up.

When leftists went to the government and asked why we were allowing corporations to run wild, why they were refusing to tax the ultra rich, why the were allowing Walmart to destroy small towns, the government could point to libertarians, who would say “we have to do this for the sake of independence and fairness.” Right-wingers supported this because these same people were supporting everything else they supported, and the idea that “Walmart destroyed your town square because it delivers better value” was acceptable to them in the larger context of the agenda they were presenting. These people were lied to and apparently believed there was no way to categorize small businesses differently than large corporations, legally, and if Walmart wasn’t allowed to destroy towns, it would mean that the government would have to implement a planned economy, as under communism. “(And then it will be communism” is kind of a right-wing equivalent of the leftist doomsday claims about the weather.)

Right-wingers are now in a kind of shock seeing this shutdown on freedom of speech, but the government can simply say: “this is what you wanted.”

Obviously, this whole global warming thing is going to come back and bite leftists the same way. We’ve already seen articles saying that people who support climate change theories are still going on vacations and refusing to eat bugs. Just like there was a fringe vanguard cult of libertarians who were tasked with injecting that agenda into conservatism, there is a fringe cult of climate changers who are going to start pushing these people do “practice what they preach.” Most of them won’t do it.

Then, at some point, they will realize they don’t have a choice.

Right-wingers were told: “No, you don’t have freedom of speech anymore, because you gave your speech rights to private companies as part of a bizarre deregulation agenda presented by fringe kooks. Yes, the end result is a lot like the communism you were trying to avoid, but the difference is that in this case, the government is – oh, it doesn’t matter anymore. It’s already happened and there is nothing that you can do about it.”

It will be the same for any leftist who wakes up and realizes that he didn’t get an anarcho-syndicalist utopia.

Democracy is about pitting people against each other, using nonsense and psychological and emotional exploitation, to push through a pre-determined agenda, and then pretend it was an accident.

Oh, so your backbone services are being attacked?

This is totally unprecedented!

NO ONE EVER COULD HAVE PREDICTED THAT SOMETHING LIKE THIS WOULD HAPPEN TO NORMIE CONSERVATIVES! NO ONE ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD HAD ANY CONCEPTION THAT SUCH A THING WAS CONCEIVABLE!

Washington Post:

Amazon suspended the pro-Trump social network Parler from its Web-hosting service this weekend, a move that threatens to darken the site indefinitely after its users glorified the recent riot at the U.S. Capitol.

The e-commerce and Web-hosting giant said Parler had violated its terms of service given its inadequate content-moderation practices, adding in a letter that it would implement its punishment just before midnight Pacific time Monday.

The move by Amazon Web Services, or AWS, marks the latest and most crippling blow for the pro-Trump social network, which has emerged as a haven for conservative users who have fled more mainstream Silicon Valley sites that crack down on harmful, viral falsehoods online. Earlier this week, Apple and Google removed Parler’s app from their stores for smartphone downloads, similarly citing concerns that posts on Parler could contribute to violence.

Amazon did not immediately respond to a request for comment. A person familiar with the matter, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, confirmed that AWS had communicated its suspension to Parler on Saturday.

Amazon founder and CEO Jeff Bezos owns The Washington Post.

Oh really? The billionaire who is pushing all of this stuff owns the number one outlet pushing all of this stuff? That’s a weird coincidence!

Funny how things work out like that some times, eh?

But Seriously

Finding new hosts isn’t that big of a deal.

The much bigger deal is being banned from the App Store and the Play Store, which has already happened.

In terms of the bigger deal after that, this will be the Cloudflare ban.

Once Cloudflare bans you, then even if you have the $25,000-50,000 a month it would take to use a CDN competitor to operate a site on the scale of Parler (it was gonna cost me $10,000), it doesn’t matter because they will deny you service. Which they are allowed to do, because a private company is allowed to do anything they want to you.

According to the Mises Institute and the National Review’s Jonah Goldberg, the Constitution says that Jack Dorsey can come to your house and sodomize your infant son, and then slit his throat on an alter to Lucifer, because he’s not the government. If you don’t agree with that than you hate freedom, you’re against our values, and you should move to China.

Along with the Cloudflare problem, you also have the domain registration problem.

Let’s just see here…

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

DREAMHOST!

I mean, I guess there are worse decisions on that front, they were one of the last ones to ban me (long after Namecheap and other “free speech” companies), but Dreamhost did of course ban me, and I assume they will ban Parler a lot quicker, since they’ve already established the process.

After the CDN ban and the Registrar ban – which are both coming soon for Parler and a bunch of other MAGA related sites – they are going to be in “CHINA PLZ HALP” territory.

That was easy enough for me, as I’ve always been relatively pro-PRC, or at least not anti-PRC. I think these sites that have been promoting all of these idiotic theories about China being behind the problems in the US are going to be met with a lot less friendliness than I was.

I just found an interesting article I wrote back in 2017, when I was dealing with all of these problems that MAGA is now dealing with. On August 24, 2017, I wrote:

The goal was to set a precedent of unpersoning someone from the internet. That way, they could do it again. To anyone. At any time.

Well, they fucked with the wrong people.

They should have chosen someone else.

And next time, they probably will choose someone else.

But I’ll tell you what: I will be there for them. 100%. Even if it is someone I don’t like. Even if it is someone I absolutely hate.

The next time that these tech companies come for someone and try to ban them from the internet, I will rally around them, whoever they are.

Freedom of speech is more important than my ideas. It is more important than any idea. Because without freedom of speech, there are no ideas.

And that is the point.

I am still here, all these years later.

I have a fraction of my reach, of course, and I was denied millions of dollars in income, of course. But I’m still here.

That is of course entirely due to my sysops, good friend and personal hero weev, primarily, and secondarily due to the strength of my own will (my will should get a shoutout here, I think).

I stand by what I said in August of 2017: I will continue to stand with and to fight for the freedom of speech of EVERYONE, including people that I disagree with, and including all of these people who didn’t stand with me when the hammer came down (basically only Tucker Carlson and Sargon of Akkad spoke out, by the way).

I wish everyone the best, and I will continue to defend them.

As far as emailing me and asking me for help – don’t bother with that. Maybe weev will help you, I don’t know, that is up to him and I haven’t talked to him about it, but I don’t have any ability to help. My only advice is this: go talk to the Chinese. Maybe they won’t look at your content, and maybe they will support you either way, even if you’re anti-Chinese, because you’re standing against the US government. I don’t know. But you don’t have any other options.

I just want to make this 100% clear: there is no internet company that will support your freedom of speech if the media says you shouldn’t have freedom of speech that is not either Chinese or Russian.

Note: Yes, DLive cracked already, and they're owned by Chinese, but they're a Chinese company that is trying to operate in America using American infrastructure and in particular American payment processors (Visa and Mastercard). There's also a good chance that DLive is going to figure out that it has no way out other than switching to crypto currency exclusively and letting it ride, after the dust settles. Probably, DLive is already getting their accounts shut, which will mean that they might as well just let everyone back on the site.

The Last Thing

The CDN and the domain registrar are going to be the biggest hurdles to remaining online, but the other thing is that you’re going to be put on the MATCH list by Mastercard, which will mean that you’re no longer able to do business using any form of Mastercard or Visa. This who process was investigated and uncovered by Dick Masterson last year.

They will also shut down your bank accounts. Basically, any America bank is just going to send you a letter saying “we’ve terminated your accounts, there is no ability to appeal this.” If you’re a CEO of Parler or whoever, this will also include your personal bank accounts, and possibly the bank accounts of family members.

The Bottom Line

You can stay online. It is possible. Even after ISPs begin hard-blocking domains, which is probably coming here pretty soon, you will be able to stay online. But you will not be able to make any money at all, and your personal lives will be destroyed.

If you manage to stay online, random Jews will just start launching lawsuits against you for no clear reason, but it won’t really matter, because you won’t have any money or bank accounts anyway.

I think you should probably think long and hard about the decision you made to not support my speech when they came down on me, and the fact that if you would have done that, you would not currently be in this situation. That was the worst decision that any of you ever made in your entire professional lives. Probably you’ve made worse decisions in your personal lives, when you were dealing with women, but you might not have.

But we can’t reverse time. We are all where we are now.

Frankly, we’re probably all going to have a lot bigger problems than internet censorship here in the next few months.

I wish you all GODSPEED.

And may God have mercy on our souls.

Video has emerged of a conference held by the conservative group Turning Point USA, wherein scantily clad women shot cash out of a cannon into the crowd.

Viral clips from the Palm Beach, Florida event are being mocked online, as people are confused as to what exactly this even is.

What it was was an advertisement for the energy drink “BANG,” a sponsor of the conference.

Unfortunately, the main viral clip features the caption: “Wait, TPUSA is giving away free money? Wait, I thought you hate socialism?”

Turning Point USA sponsor "Bang Energy" continued to shoot money out of a cannon throughout their 25-minute sales pitch to attendees – urging TPUSA activists to buy their product. pic.twitter.com/KOB9bQwpnN

— Zachary Petrizzo (@ZTPetrizzo) December 20, 2020

In fact, the concept of advertising – which is what this was – jives perfectly fine with the libertarian ideology of TPUSA, meaning that the message of this tweet is inane.

My own tweet would have read: “It’s about the ideas.”

The conservative movement is generally associated with intellectualism, which is why it was possible for the poison of ideology to get such a stranglehold. Charlie Kirk, leader of TPUSA, is no different, pretending to be about ideas while falling back on nonsense ideology.

Related: After Conservative Ideologists Supported the Lockdown, Conservative Ideology is Dead Forever

At one point during the presentation, the Bang advertisement also turned into an EDM dance party.

Conservative Youth Conference or EDM Rave? pic.twitter.com/PCxb1XoWms

— Jaden McNeil (@JadenPMcNeil) December 20, 2020

You have here a scene where advertisement for a large company is creating a moronic spectacle. Allowing for degrading advertisement like this is not only in line with their ideas, it is at the core of their Libertarian ideology.

That is to say:

• They claim to put ideas and thinking first
• Their deep thinking has led them to libertarian ideology
• Following this ideology leads to a celebration of moronic spectacle (it prizes selling out to the highest bidder, and in a society of morons, the highest bidder is marketing to morons)
• Only morons are attracted to moronic spectacle
• Morons cannot grasp complex ideology (in our society, they tend to support socialism, in fact)
• The ideology of TPUSA makes it impossible to market the ideology of TPUSA

This all highlights the fundamental idiocy of libertarianism: it cannot sell, and thus it defeats itself.

Obviously, there are problems with libertarianism beyond the fact that it cannot sell, but the singular first question of any movement that intended to become the dominant order of society is: “can I get the majority of people (or close to it) to support this?”

If this answer to that is “no,” then you need to go back to the drawing board, and figure out something that will sell.

But that brings us to the actual thing: the purpose of libertarianism is not to become the dominant ideology in society and thereby direct the society. The purpose of libertarianism is to justify certain behaviors of the ruling elite, by claiming that the reason they are allowed to behave this way is because of libertarianism.

Primarily, libertarianism exists as the force justifying the gap between the rich and the poor.

When someone asks: “Why are these multinational corporations completely unregulated? Why is Jeff Bezos allowed to double his wealth while tens of thousands of small businesses go under? What the hell is going on here?”, the answer is “because of libertarians, they’ve been lobbying for this stuff for decades.”

Libertarianism is also designed to convince conservatives to support leftist agendas, by selling them an ideological angle.

For example:

• “Women have a right to choose what they do with their own bodies.”
• “Gay sex is between two consenting adults, in the privacy of their own bedroom.”
• “Mass immigration is good for the economy.”
• “It’s not the government’s job to decide what drugs you’re allowed to take.”
• “Private companies have a right to censor politics they don’t like.”
• “People have a right to decide if they want to consume pornography.”
• “America is a nation of ideas.”

You see people who are ostensibly right-wing supporting these positions, and you say: “What is this? Why are you supporting a leftist position?” and they start in with some kind of complicated, convoluted ideological argument.

But in the end, the ideological stuff just amounts to this: these people support the agenda of the left.

That is the real world result.

Ideology doesn’t exist in the real world, it is an abstraction, which is used to manipulate people and get them to support things that they normally would not support in pursuit of a greater utopia.

The utopia is never coming, of course. You can just look around and see the effects in the real world of the things that libertarians support. But mid-wits believe they are too smart to deal with practical realities.

Because of the implosion of the Alt-Right following unfortunate spectacles – first Heilgate and then Charlottesville – TPUSA became the dominant lobbying force in the Trump administration. Everything that they succeeded in getting Trump to agree to promote involved a leftist agenda. They promoted immigration – “as long as it’s LEGAL” – and they promoted various issues involving homosexuality.

Libertarians do agree with some right-wing positions:

• Pro-gun
• Anti-war

It’s just that they are never successful in promoting right-wing positions. They are only ever successful promoting the positions that they agree with the left on. Again, that is because they do not exist to become the dominant force in society, but only to assist the left.

It’s a constant assistance, where the left passes libertarians the ball and they dunk it.

Libertarianism doesn’t run things, and yet they continue to make policy as if they are running things. So you end up with abject lunacy, like the government causing businesses to collapse by shutting them down in the name of the coronavirus, then libertarians coming in and saying that the government shouldn’t bail them out. We saw them saying: “it’s not the government’s job to bail out businesses” – after it was the government that shut them down!

This dynamic is always in play, because libertarians don’t control the government, and are in fact nowhere near power, and yet always want to promote their own agenda.

Furthermore, most of them don’t really even believe in their own ideology. Turning Point USA supports sending billions of dollars to Israel.

You can always count on Rand Paul to come out on the wrong side of the issue eventually, no matter what that issue may be.

Having borders? Unconstitutional.

Taking conservatives’ guns away? Please, go right ahead!

t. Randlet.

Big League Politics:

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) shocked his liberty-minded base after he signaled support for red flag gun laws in an interview on Tuesday, as reported by the Associated Press on Tuesday.

The AP profiled Paul’s recovery from lung-removal surgery, which happened as a complication from an ambush attack by his left-wing former neighbor Rene Boucher outside of his home in late 2017. He is close to a full recovery and ready to return to work in Washington D.C.

“It is great to be here,” he said while speaking in Kentucky at a chamber of commerce luncheon. “It is great to be upright and walking around and beginning to heal.”

“And like anybody else who’s used to being active, it’s hard to sit still,” Paul added. “I’m ready to get back in the mix of things and to start traveling around the state some.”

Arguably the most noteworthy line from Paul’s remarks was his position on gun control. Paul, who is one of the most unflinching proponents for gun rights in the Senate, made remarks indicating his support for red flag laws that would confiscate firearms from individuals deemed threatening to the public safety.

“I’m not opposed to sort of an emergency order for 48 hours and then you get a hearing in a court where you get the full due-process protections,” he said. “It’s the one thing that could fix a lot of stuff. I think most of these homicidal attackers … are sending off signals to their family and community.” 

Yikes, Rand.

I don’t know what I even expected. The truth is, he was destined for mediocrity and unpopularity the moment he was given that retarded name.

His father, who was himself “Rand” in all but name, went ahead and named his son in honor of a psycho Jew she-shill who wanted the goyim to accept the teachings of Jewish Capitalism into their hearts and souls.

With such a rocky start, it’s not hard to see why Rand went on to become such a failure later in life.

Needless to say, Red Flag Gun Laws are a very bad idea. They will be the preferred method used by the Left/Liberals/Bolsheviks to strip bad goyim of their weapons and send them to gulags. There’s a reason that they’re called “Red Flag” laws, after all.

And while we’re at it, Lolberts and Communists really are just two flip-sides to the same coin.

If I wanted to take a deep dive on the subject, I’d start by pointing out that Communism is always supported and fostered by Capitalist countries in both the revolution stage and then in the recovery and investment stage.

This seems counter-intuitive to people, but it all makes sense when you consider the fact that Communism, wherever it has been tried, has basically reduced the cost of human labor to almost zero – imposing slave-like conditions on the people of the country that it conquers. With such low labor costs, Capital is eager to flood in and start setting up manufacturing.

It’s not an exaggeration to say that the relationship is symbiotic.

People forget that the entire economy of the USSR was built by American companies eager to swoop in on a new market and use the cheap labor now afforded to them by the Communist revolution.

Ford Model A’s were built during the NEP period in the USSR.

You could say that this was a fluke, I suppose, but it happened again in China and Vietnam did it not?

Does any lolbert ever ask why Capital is so eager to leave middle-class heavy countries and move into supposedly hostile Communist countries without individual rights and business guarantees and Jesus and all that jazz that patriotic big business is supposed to be for?

No?

Well, it is because Capitalism simply cannot exist without Communism. 

Basically, Communism is the wrecking crew that goes in and destroys traditional societies and turns everyone into an atomized worker when simple Capitalist carrot and stick coercion measures don’t work. Religion, peasant culture, the nobility – anything that can stand against the power of Capital is systematically destroyed if it refuses to first be bought out.

That is, any large country with a well-paid workforce and culturally-grounded society needs to be either bought out or brought down. Fancy-pantsy ideology and free-market Jewish theology is just used as a smoke and mirror show to distract the goyim from true power processes.

Just look at what happened in the USSR.

They were being propped up by the Capitalists and they had literally no problem rationalizing it all away.

What I’m trying to say here is that ideology is bullshit, and watching Poodlehead Paul try wrestle with his religious beliefs instead of doing what is the best for his country and for his constituency – rural White folks – is frustrating and retarded. What’s worse, Rand no doubt thinks his constant waffling makes him a principled man.

But there is only one principle worth ever following in this world and that is doing what is right by your own people, ideology be damned.

Rand Paul is just an unhelpful one-lunged doofus who will never be President.

This juicy little strumpet is from the National Review, now of the Washington Examiner.

She is a mouthpiece for the absolute worst ideas of all time. Ideas that literally destroyed an entire civilization.

Serious question to “conservatives” who want the gov’t to regulate social media: what do you do when the GOP loses control of the White House & Congress? That day will come, even if only temporarily. When it does, do you want President AOC appointing the regulators?

— Tiana Lowe (@TianaTheFirst) May 2, 2019

Two things can be true at once:
1. It’s immoral for social media platforms to call themselves objective platforms and then inconsistently regulate speech.
2. The government has neither the right nor the competency to regulate this problem out of existence.

— Tiana Lowe (@TianaTheFirst) May 2, 2019

Name me the last problem the government has made better and not worse by getting involved. The only answers involve public goods, externalities, agency dilemmas, and monopolies. Social media falls under none of these umbrellas. Gab still exists.

— Tiana Lowe (@TianaTheFirst) May 2, 2019

I have been consistently critical of social media technocrats. I’m sure lawyer Twitter can tell me whether social media giants will lose Section 230 protection. But even that is scaling *back* a law’s coverage, not making a new one. https://t.co/G3vmAHKGex

— Tiana Lowe (@TianaTheFirst) May 2, 2019

FWIW, we still have some consumer power. Conservatives got @JesseKellyDC back on Twitter. But I think private citizens have to be mindful in diversifying how they distribute & consume information. Subscribe to newsletters. Vary your media diet. Use Patreon.

— Tiana Lowe (@TianaTheFirst) May 2, 2019

Obviously, women do not have ideas and just repeat things. Her entire thing here is simply a by route recitation of the conservative/libertarian argument on why you shouldn’t have free speech on the Internet – the argument that liberals used against me when I became the first person ever to be banned from everything.

Nick Fuentes had a brilliant response to this thread, articulating a sentiment I think we all share.

Fuck you

— Nicholas J. Fuentes (@NickJFuentes) May 2, 2019

There are a few things about this.

The first, most obvious and most important thing is that if she was under any threat of being banned, she would have a different position on this issue. She is simply choosing not to support the people being silenced because she knows she won’t ever be silenced. So she is either taking the opportunity to shill these idiotic liberal economic values, or she is purposefully trying to bully conservatives into being pro-censorship because she wants all of these people banned.

I will go through the rest of it point by point.

“But what if AOC is president and she’s making the rules???”

First, if the Democrats get into power, they are going to do whatever they want. They won’t need justification for any of it. They won’t only do things that Trump already did.

Second, the people making these decisions right now have the same value system as AOC. It couldn’t really get any worse.

Third, what we are asking for explicitly is an Internet Bill of Rights that protects our freedom of speech on the Internet. We’re not asking for a complex series of regulations, simply application of existing law regarding the public square to the Internet.

Fourth, it would be illegal for President AOC to use Internet regulation for censorship unless she abolished the First Amendment.

Fifth, it would be better if the government was openly censoring us, instead of using the Rube Goldberg censorship machine of refusing to pass basic speech protections on the Internet.

“The government doesn’t have the right!”

We do not live in Somalia. We live in a country with laws and a government that is tasked with enforcing the law, and our law says that people have a right to freedom of speech.

Taking this theory of “corporate monopolies can collude with each other to deny basic rights to individuals based on their political views or for any other reason and the government can’t stop them because of our values” to its ultimate conclusion, you could literally justify people being denied food, shelter and clothing and being forced to die in the streets.

What if all grocery stores colluded to decide not to sell you food because you’re a racist?

Would it be immoral for the government to pass a law saying that it is illegal for grocery stores to discriminate against their customers and that they have to sell people food?

If not, then how is this situation any different, at all?

Or would this bitch literally say “well, if all the grocery stores deny you service, you can hunt small birds with a pointed stick in a public park.”

What if hunting small birds in a public park is illegal? I assume it is illegal. Would her response be “well, the answer isn’t more regulation; if people are starving to death in the streets because they were blacklisted by grocery stores, we need to decriminalize hunting small birds in public parks with pointed sticks”?

Furthermore, this censorship situation is worse, in terms of this weird abstract theological libertarian economic view on government regulation, than the grocery analogy.

Because these are not simply “private companies” in the way that a grocery store is a “private company.”

The entire infrastructure of the Internet was designed and built using public funds. These companies are all benefiting from infrastructure that was paid for by the taxpayer. The taxpayer also foots the bill for the government to build new Internet infrastructure to speed up the delivery of YouTube videos.

The government not only has a right to defend free speech on the Internet, they have a duty to do so.

“The government doesn’t have the competence!”

This goes into a deep hole of libertarian mumbo-jumbo, but the fact is that no matter how many times they say this, you can look and see that everything the government wants accomplished gets accomplished. The idea that they are incompetent is simply a canard designed to explain away why they do things that seem counterintuitive to people who believe that the government is not run by bloodsucking psychopaths.

But you don’t have to go into all that. The government was competent enough to pass the Communications Act of 1934 which included a universal service provision that said every citizen would be given access to telecommunications.

This is incredibly simple.

“It is impossible for the government to solve a problem”

This is the point where everything just completely falls apart, and these people begin literally calling for the government to be abolished.

If the government were to be abolished, neon-Nazis would just lead an army of unhinged Iraq vets, MMA lunatics, weeb dorks, gamergaters, incels and Sandy Hook denialists and go murder all of the faggots and Jews that run Silicon Valley, then run it ourselves.

But “just abolish the government” is not a reasonable, adult position to take. The government exists and is going to continue to exist for the foreseeable future, so claiming that we should never try to change laws and make them work for people, or that we should never protect people’s rights because the government actually shouldn’t even exist in the first place, is just malicious nihilism.

Making theoretical political arguments about a universe in which there is no government and applying it to a universe in which there is a government is not acceptable.

“I refuse to grant the premise that the government exists” isn’t a moving debate strategy.

“The fact that Gab exists means that Twitter isn’t a monopoly”

This goes back to the grocery store argument.

Using Gab instead of Twitter is like hunting small birds in a public park instead of shopping at a grocery store.

But the Curious Case of the Daily Stormer proved that the entire structure of the Internet itself is a colluding oligopoly, which is the same thing as a monopoly. I was banned not only from all social media and all web hosting services, but also from domain registrars and DDoS mitigation services. Meaning I literally could not have any presence at all on the Internet if they had succeeded. And we only secured this .name by the skin of our teeth, and it isn’t going to last forever. Eventually, “private companies” will succeed in ensuring that this website is no longer available on the public internet and is only accessible through Tor AKA the Pedoweb.

Gab has already lost multiple domain registrars and hosting services, and it will eventually be shut down, because they are currently dependent on private companies which have already shown a willingness to shut people down for legal speech deemed offensive by the media.

“Removing CDA 230 protections would be okay because it is SCALING BACK A LAW instead of CREATING A LAW”

This is just more gibberish. There is no fundamental difference between the government creating or abolishing law in order to enact a positive change. There is only some theoretical, theological difference.

And you cannot follow this to any conclusion. If laws that protect people and their rights are bad, and the only morally justifiable thing to do ever is remove laws, then where exactly does that end?

Murder investigations and trials are complicated and require people to appear in court to give statements even if they didn’t personally commit a murder. Sometimes people are wrongly accused of murder and have to defend themselves. Sometimes people are even wrongly convicted of murder and executed for it.

Murder law involves a lot of regulations.

Would people be more free if laws against murder were abolished? Arguably yes (???), if they were strong or otherwise good with weapons, but it would result in massive changes to society which would include a huge bloodbath.

None of these “values and principles” are meaningful methods of examining how reality actually works. It is all just a gigantic scam, purposefully designed to justify the abuse of the population.

Conclusion

I don’t think anyone believes what they are saying when they claim that it would be an unconscionable violation of the free market for the government to pass laws banning political censorship on the Internet. They have to have some kind of agenda, because literally no one is that stupid.

Two years ago, I was banned by every major provider of Internet services on the planet, then banned by a bunch of different countries, in a global collusion conspiracy to keep me from being able to access the public Internet in any form. They were literally saying “so build your own Internet, this is capitalism.”

But the people saying it were all liberals, using a kind of tactical libertarianism. 

When alleged conservatives come out with this, it is obvious that they want to themselves collude with the tech companies to prune the right-wing of individuals that they view either as competition or as threats to their own ideological space. By refusing to defend freedom of speech and justifying mass censorship with nonsensical ideological gibberish, conservative libertarians like the ones who tell the juicy little strumpet Tiana Lowe what to say are complicit in the systematic silencing of anyone who questions the mainstream narrative.

Tucker Carlson’s interview with Ben Shapiro was incredible.

We gave it a full 14/88 – full marks – here at the Stormer.

But that was before the world’s greatest living philosopher had his say. Yes, after listening to Stefan Molyneux’s take on the interview and absolutely savage putdown of Tucker’s populist arguments, I actually feel compelled to retract my previous article.

Stefan’s argument is simple, and he honed in on the same part of the debate that I did – the talk about automated trucks and the social cost of new technology and the mass unemployment that awaits vast swathes of America.

Tucker was wrong because he strayed from lolberg principles and raised a concern about the welfare of American workers instead. That came off as a bit commie to Stefan.

See, to Stefan, the system and the principles that gird the system, hold it up as it were – they are more important than the people. Your people, our people. Clever little theories trump all of that. We live to serve the system, not the other way ’round as Tucker believes.

Because that is the main purpose of any sane society: to contort itself into logical pretzels while living up to a clever set of principles, and not to concern oneself with banalities like, oh idk, the general welfare of the people. 

But Stefan is an internet philosopher and that’s a well-paid profession that can’t be replaced with robots right?

*beep* *boop* collectivism is EVIL, let me show you a random 20-something thot who agrees.

All this is to say that Stephan and other similar personalities like him aren’t engaging in White Taqiya or hiding their power levels.

If Tucker Carlson can get on air every night and be more based while on cable news, the bar for online cuckservatives has been raised. Or perhaps a better way of explaining it is that the Overton Window has been moved. Seriously, thanks to Tucker, that window now peaks onto a wide and bountiful valley overflowing with milk and populism.

What is even the point of these Alt-Lite types now? 

Between Tucker and Iron Ann, you have two mainstream figures who are more based than anyone left in the old Alt-Lite.

So now Stefan is reduced to attacking mainstream Fox News Nationalists (probably because he thinks he’s Jewish or something) on their channels!

You could have said that Stefan was a good gateway to the red pill or something similar way back when, but this logic flies out of the window if he attacks an actual nationalist like Tucker.

These guys really have no excuse at this point. Into the trash they all go.

Here we have the Jew Ben Shapiro trying to put White Anglo-Saxon Protestant Tucker Carlson into a trap where he can call Tucker a socialist by getting Tucker to express concern about workers and about the effects of new tech.

Tucker sees right through the trap, walks right into it, and springs it. 

Ben asks him point blank if he would stand in the way of progress, namely in the field of automated cars which will make hundreds of thousands of driving jobs obsolete.

Tucker rephrases the question, to demonstrate to the audience that he knows what Ben is asking, that he knows the trap that Ben has set up for him, but that he’s going to be honest, and forge ahead anyway with bold arguments no one has ever heard from a talk show host before.

He says that he would ban automated trucks in a heartbeat if it meant saving the livelihood of American workers. In particular, blue-collar proles with no other employment options.

Wow.

This is Tucker Carlson we’re talking about here. A man who got so deep into the lolbertardian cult that he used to prance around TV in a red bowtie like all the members of the cult are supposed to.

The man above was not a fighter.

That man was a principled loser. A loser who cared more about the inane theoretical fiddlings of funky Jewish professors than his own blood and soil Americans.

This man died in a car accident. Or an earthquake. Or possibly in an inferno.

We may never know the details.

But we do know that a new man rose from the ashes, infused with fiery righteousness and a vast reservoir of righteous red-blooded cruelty to draw from… this man is the new Tucker Carlson… and he is on a warpath.

After Tucker spring’s the Jew’s trap, the interview only continues to get more based.

Tucker says that Capitalism is not a religion.

It is simply a means to an end – the betterment and welfare of the people. And to that end, we will not stay slaves to any one ideology or other – principles do not matter, results do. 

Tucker hammers his point home by saying that he doesn’t want a nation where you have 10 million people out of work from a new tech and 10 million families destroyed as a result.

Of course, Benji doesn’t like this goy thinking about his own. Not. One. Bit.

Tucker then talks about the problems of technological progress and the damage they wreak on society.

Yeah, that’s right. Tucker’s been listening to TED Talks.

Really fascinating interview.

Tucker has clearly become the fully awakened White man. 

In fact, he appears to be transforming into some kind of GOD-MAN.

He has grown and matured and discarded childish ideologies. Now, only the welfare of his folk concerns him.

And the BTFOing just continues relentlessly, in fact, he really rips into Ben, who tries to come up with some – I shit you not – Biblical argument to sell to Amerikaners who are about to lose their jobs.

He asks Tucker if they should not be telling these soon-to-be-unemployed people that it is God’s plan for them that they just need to move to the suburbs and do menial part-time labor to get by as they become atomized bugmen like the rest of society.

Unsurprisingly, Tucker refuses to tolerate such blatant Jewish soulless rootless cosmopolitan trickery.

“And what about the graves of their forefathers?”, Tucker asks.

No seriously.

I’m not embellishing here. Tucker’s performance is like listening to someone IRL Fash Wave meme.

Wew lads.

Tucker really needs to consider a presidential run. 

He’s articulate, coherent and clearly stands on a solid bedrock of folkish fundamentalism. If Trump is our Gaius Cesar…

Then perhaps Tucker is our Octavian, willing to finish what Trump started.

THIS ARTICLE CONTAINS IMPORTANT ARGUMENTS TO BE USED IN THE INFOWAR! READ IT TWICE!

After pinning a tweet about Google political manipulation, Trump was asked by a journalist if he wanted the company subject to “government regulation.”

Trump initially said “we’ll see” and then added “we don’t want regulation, we want fairness.”

Obviously, there is no way we are going to get any form of fairness without regulation. Trump knows this.

However, the word “regulation” has become bait for cuckservatives, who use libertarian arguments to defeat their own stated agendas because it is “values” and “principles” to lose while smugly saying you’re the real winner because you protected your values and principles.

Meanwhile, in reality, the only values of any value are: “losing is just losing” and “winning is just winning.”

The J-left obviously understands this. When dozens of corporations which together control 99.999999999999% of the internet colluded to attempt to make it impossible for me to even use the internet, the left argued that it was okay because they are private corporations and can thus do whatever they want.

That is, the selfsame people who forced small family-owned Christian bakeries out of business for refusing to bake homosexual wedding cakes were using a libertarian argument in defense of the most powerful corporations that ever existed on earth.

This is not because they don’t have “values” and “principles” – clearly, that is one thing that leftists do have. It is simply that they measure them by how much they win, how far they are able to push their agenda, not by ideological abstractions.

Part of their agenda is silencing the opposition, because they know that they are incapable of arguing their agenda successfully in an open market of ideas. It is a part of their value system that the opposition should be silenced, and they do not care if they have to engage in contradictory reasoning in order to push that value system.

“Never Regulate Anything” is Not a “Conservative Value”

If you ask an average conservative what “conservative values” are, they will probably say:

• Christianity
• Traditional families
• No abortion
• Freedoms

Attaching “the ability of multinational corporations to abuse the population” onto this value system was a Jewish trick, in the same way it was a Jewish trick to attach support for Israel and Israel’s wars onto Christianity.

Yes, “massive government” is objectively negative. However, so is “no government.” There have to be rules protecting the public from abuse, and these rules need to be enforced most aggressively against the biggest companies. Having a lot of legislation is not the answer – in fact, the more legislation you have, the easier it is for Jew lawyers to figure out a way around it. A simple rule that natural tech monopolies must respect free speech, as they are the de facto public square, is not communism. It is not communism anymore than outlawing child molestation and heroin dealing is communism.

And by the way, libertarians support abolishing the age of consent and legalizing all drugs. That is where the contradiction lies in mixing libertarianism with conservatism – no conservative would support legalizing sex with children or heroin dealing, yet it is the ultimate end of the logic the cuckservatives are employing when they say that all government regulation is planned economy communism.

Trump succeeded in tearing away “free trade” from conservatism because the people had seen that this alleged “free” trade led to them not having jobs and being poor. When cuckservatives like Paul Ryan and the cuckservative publications like The National Review that support him came out and said it was against conservative values to regulate international trade, they were able to hear what was actually being said: “you have to be poor because of an ideological abstraction that has nothing to do with your life or reality in general.”

People outright rejected the cuckservative attempt to keep them in poverty for the benefit of multinational corporations, both because they did not want to be poor AND because they for the first time took a hard look at the concept of “free trade” and realized they have no particular reason to be devoted to it.

It was like Morrissey said: “burn down the disco, hang the DJ, because the music they constantly play says nothing to me about my life.”

We need to do the same thing with internet regulation. And I don’t think it is going to be very hard, because like with trade, people have seen the real world effects of losing freedoms on the internet.

Clearly, what Trump is doing right now is attempting to get the issue discussed widely, to wait for the cuckservative response, and allow for it to be crushed by the appropriate pundits, at which point he can act. The left knows that they themselves cannot directly oppose regulation on the grounds that it is wrong to regulate private companies – this is the “bake the cake, bigot” crowd.

With the tech companies, the Democrats have made this huge scandal out of alleged Russian memes on Facebook, which means that they too should be supporting regulation. To be sure, I am not bothered by the idea of the regulations including a section which says that people paying for advertisement as foreign citizens and/or agents of a foreign government must disclose this. In fact, that is probably sensible. And a lot more ads are going to be forced to read “paid for by a citizen of Israel” than “paid for by a citizen of Russia.”

So the Jews are going to rely on a “right-wing” defense of the tech companies. Thus far, no one on the left has come out with an argument against tech regulation, while the National Review and Wall Street Journal, both traditional cuckservative platforms, have sent out a barrage of autistic screeching about how any form of regulation would amount to a planned economy.

This is something we can easily fight.

And the time to fight it is now. Trump is getting the ball rolling. We just have to kick it.

And the way to kick it is by forcing the point that they are using libertarian arguments, and that libertarians ultimately believe that there shouldn’t be any government at all. Ask them if they are also against regulating sex with children and heroin distribution. If they say “no,” tell them they are meddling in the economy by regulating the ability of entrepreneurial pimps to sell sex with children and innovative drug dealers to distribute heroin, that this is communism, that they shouldn’t be supporting a planned economy.

Just keep pressing those points, and tell them that they appear to not believe in the rule of law. Because at the same time as the cucks have pushed deregulation on people with an authoritarian personality, they have not tried to dismantle the “I believe in the rule of law” meme. And the rule of law either exists or it doesn’t, and for it to exist, you have to have a government. The reach of the government has to be based on common sense, not an abstract principle.

It is common sense that:

• It should be illegal to have sex with children
• It should be illegal to distribute dangerous, addictive drugs
• It should be illegal for monopolistic tech companies to decide what people are allowed to say and think

That is what we mean when we say “the rule of law.”

The number one eternal question for libertarianism has forever been: what if the child consents?

Well, Finland just called the debate: if the man is a Moslem asylum seeker, then the child consented.

RT:

In a case that has triggered public outrage, a top Finnish court has upheld a ruling that sex between an asylum seeker and a 10-year-old girl didn’t constitute rape. Critics are calling for harsher sentences for child abuse.

Finland’s Supreme Court rejected a request from the prosecution to appeal a three-year jail term for a 23-year-old man on Thursday. Finnish media identify him as Juusuf Muhamed Abbudin, an asylum seeker, but don’t reveal his country of origin.

The man was convicted of aggravated sexual abuse, although the prosecution had sought a harsher sentence on charges of aggravated rape. However, the court left the original verdict unchanged.

The incident took place near the city of Tampere in southern Pirkanmaa region in autumn 2016. The man had sexual intercourse with a girl, who was 10-years old at the time, in the yard of a deserted apartment block. He also exchanged sexually charged messages with her.

Both Pirkanmaa District Court and the Appeal Court in the city of Turku convicted the asylum seeker of aggravated sexual abuse and handed him a three-year prison sentence in 2017. The courts didn’t recognize the incident as rape, saying the girl wasn’t forced into the sexual act or overcome by fear. The judges also ordered the man to pay the child €3,000 ($3,600).

Sorry guys.

Sex with little girls isn’t very funny.

But look.

I really am sorry here, guys.

But when the migrants come in and Europe says “you can do whatever you want here” and they’re like “okay, so can I have sex with a 10-year-old” and Europe almost tries to blink but then is like “yeah, sure. No problem, Juusuf.”

That is funny. 

There is a point at which outrage is impotence, and we passed that point in like, 2014.

Outrage, as an emotional state, is only useful insofar as someone is going to respond to it.

No one is going to respond to you being outraged that Finland just made a huge step towards decriminalizing sex with pre-pubescent children as Europe as a whole struggles to reshape itself in the image of Islam.

It is more powerful to laugh, now.

If you are outraged, there are a series of responses people are programmed to give, explaining how it is all okay, how it has to be this way, how we don’t have any choice.

If you laugh at the pure absurdity of the rape, at the murders, at the explosions – those who have been programmed, and have accepted the programming, have no response to that.

Ultimately, it will break them.

And it will keep you alive.

Because you, dear reader – you are not Jesus Christ.

You were not put on this earth to bear the sins of the world.

You were put on this earth to live, to enjoy yourself, and to fight.

And to do that, you have to let go of all of this.