“The company said this did not represent a reversal of its previous stance, but rather the result of reconsidering how it interprets its existing policies.”
I mean, that’s a swerve in the right direction if I’ve ever seen one. But it’s a swerve nonetheless. As if there was supposed to be more than one interpretation of the policy. Still good though.
I’m going to reprint Thomas Paine’s “Common Sense” 1 page at a time for the next 47 days. Stirring up discontent and anti-government fervor. Insurrection maxxing like a boss.
Also, Joe Biden banged his daughter in the shower.
The problem with your Obama-like campaign for censorship - is that it's inherently subjective and fascistic.
You ASSUME that Richard Spencer has a bunch of readers, and makes money on substack... Journalists investigate and PROVE allegations of this sort... And SO WHAT - if he does? Whatever happened to the TRUE left principles, standing up against the tyranny of censorship? What ever happened to, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - a quote attributed to Voltaire, rightly or not.
I don't think that a real student of the Third Reich would use the term "Nazi" to describe Spencer. But the Zionist cause which collaborated with the Third Reich has happily taken to throwing that term around, at anyone who speaks out against the total annihilation and ethnic cleansing of all the indigenous inhabitants of occupied Palestine. Certainly we can all remember a time, just a few years ago, when the daughter and granddaughter of ACTUAL NAZIS, Chrystia Freeland (Chomiak) - and her equally WEF-approved superior, the Nazi-applauding Justin Turdeau - were calling anyone who dared to oppose their totalitarian schemes, with a well-organized, peaceful, nonviolent civil disobedience campaign, "Nazis", as well; without any acknowledgement of the irony. Canada's courts have now acknowledged that those brave and wonderful souls engaging in real democracy, did not, in fact, constitute any kind of "Emergency". But totalitarians of a fauxgressive flavor, couldn't speak up fast enough - demanding that their speech rights be silenced, their bank accounts be frozen, and their trucks seized and sold at auction. If Justin Turdeau or Chrystia the Banderite had a Substack - should it be censored? Why or why not? Are they not just fascists on the right 'team' - and therefore to be suffered the same rights as the rest of us?
Substack is wonderful oasis, in a vast desert of censorship and fraudulent narrative management schemes, properly exposed by the authors who produced the Twitter Files, and also by the discovery phases in cases like Missouri v. Biden, and Berenson v. Twitter. There was a time when those who self-identified as leftists would have been appalled and fighting mad about such gross abrogations of the 1st Amendment... Now it feels that their only outrage is that the Censorship is not complete ENOUGH...
When the ACLU defended the rights of Nazis, to march through Skokie, Illinois - they did it to uphold a universal right, which cannot be summarily "cancelled". The right of those Nazis to March there - is also the right of Anti-Fascists to march in the South, or in the Pacific Northwest.
The idea that Substack is a haven for Nazis - is patently absurd - and has never been PROVEN.
In any event - the answer for reprehensible speech is not some sort of elite and patrician censorship, of the sort currently being advocated, by Dick Cheney's CIA-intern cousin-of-color - the (Intelligence) Community Organizer - who essentially legalized the US Government LYING to the American people, with the "Smith-Mundt Modernization Act"... The answer is MORE SPEECH, better speech, better arguments, better debate and exchange of ideas - not less.
Substack is absolutely perfect the way that it is. The only people who object to the lack Imperial (ist) Narrative Management, on this platform - are the OPERATION MOCKINGBIRD stooges, like that NY Times Reporter whom you name - whose weak ideas, and perception management strategies fall-apart, when subjected to rational and uncontrolled scrutiny.
We see the same censorious efforts currently being directed at other bastions of beautiful 'wrongthink', like The Grayzone, The Electronic Intifadah, Mint Press News, Consortium News, Global Research, etc. etc...
I'm actually quite surprised to hear that Richard Spencer has a blog on Substack. I'm sure that like all the fine and decent people whose work I follow, that I'll never be troubled by its mere existence. Ironically, by pretending that Substack is the new "Stormfront" - you're actually generating something called "the Streisand Effect"... Were Spencer kicked off the platform - what actual benefit would that have? He and his handful of troglodyte followers wouldn't cease to exist... They'd just be forced onto another platform, and at that point, the occulted (and certainly awful) ideas would be impossible for those who oppose them, to find and refute. He and his handful of supporters would be that much harder to find, and to MOCK. Their ideas, unregistered and unrefuted would actually have greater impact on those susceptible to them - because we wouldn't be able to destroy them, in "notes", like this one.
As an apparently diehard fan of Obama's, as you appear to be... Are you unaware of the relationship between Netflix's least talented Executive, and serial abusers like Sumner Redstone? Who do you think was throwing money at him, at Beverly Hills Fundraisers and Malibu parties at David Geffen's? Barbara Streisand wasn't the only generous benefactor.
"If freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter." George Washington
"Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear."
[Special Message to the Congress on the Internal Security of the United States, August 8, 1950]
Harry S. Truman
"Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech."
Benjamin Franklin
"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."
United Nations, Universal Declaration of Human Rights
"If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."
[Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927)]
Louis Brandeis
"If you accept – and I do – that freedom of speech is important, then you are going to have to defend the indefensible. That means you are going to be defending the right of people to read, or to write, or to say, what you don’t say or like or want said. The Law is a huge blunt weapon that does not and will not make distinctions between what you find acceptable and what you don’t. This is how the Law is made. People making art find out where the limits of free expression are by going beyond them and getting into trouble. [...] The Law is a blunt instrument. It’s not a scalpel. It’s a club. If there is something you consider indefensible, and there is something you consider defensible, and the same laws can take them both out, you are going to find yourself defending the indefensible." Neil Gaiman
"There must be no barriers to freedom of inquiry … There is no place for dogma in science. The scientist is free, and must be free to ask any question, to doubt any assertion, to seek for any evidence, to correct any errors. Our political life is also predicated on openness. We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it and that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. And we know that as long as men are free to ask what they must, free to say what they think, free to think what they will, freedom can never be lost, and science can never regress." J. Robert Oppenheimer
"Contrary to what many well-intentioned people believe, the fact that we have multiple social media platforms today has little effect on spreading genuinely diverse narratives and perspectives. Social media is not only increasingly in the hands of a few billionaires strongly connected to the ruling class (e.g., Meta acquiring some of the most popular and active platforms), but also the fact that social media platforms operate based on carefully designed and manipulated algorithms to promote the viewpoints of the ruling class in what Cathy O’Neil has called ‘weapons of math destruction’, and what Safiya Umoja Noble insightfully calls ‘algorithms of oppression’, which apply not only to racial matters, but extend to every other matter that is potentially at odds with the desires of the ruling class." Louis Yako
So as you can see... There are some great minds that have covered this ground, before you. They did it better.
“The company said this did not represent a reversal of its previous stance, but rather the result of reconsidering how it interprets its existing policies.”
I mean, that’s a swerve in the right direction if I’ve ever seen one. But it’s a swerve nonetheless. As if there was supposed to be more than one interpretation of the policy. Still good though.
Heads up numpty.
I’m going to reprint Thomas Paine’s “Common Sense” 1 page at a time for the next 47 days. Stirring up discontent and anti-government fervor. Insurrection maxxing like a boss.
Also, Joe Biden banged his daughter in the shower.
Turn me in.
“You have 1 paragraph to describe your cognitive deficiencies; go.”
*Furious finger typing*
“That’s more than 1 paragraph, boss.”
“Eh, it’s close enough. Where’s my award? I always get an award...so let’s have it.”
🏅
Blocked. Stop trolling.
The problem with your Obama-like campaign for censorship - is that it's inherently subjective and fascistic.
You ASSUME that Richard Spencer has a bunch of readers, and makes money on substack... Journalists investigate and PROVE allegations of this sort... And SO WHAT - if he does? Whatever happened to the TRUE left principles, standing up against the tyranny of censorship? What ever happened to, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - a quote attributed to Voltaire, rightly or not.
I don't think that a real student of the Third Reich would use the term "Nazi" to describe Spencer. But the Zionist cause which collaborated with the Third Reich has happily taken to throwing that term around, at anyone who speaks out against the total annihilation and ethnic cleansing of all the indigenous inhabitants of occupied Palestine. Certainly we can all remember a time, just a few years ago, when the daughter and granddaughter of ACTUAL NAZIS, Chrystia Freeland (Chomiak) - and her equally WEF-approved superior, the Nazi-applauding Justin Turdeau - were calling anyone who dared to oppose their totalitarian schemes, with a well-organized, peaceful, nonviolent civil disobedience campaign, "Nazis", as well; without any acknowledgement of the irony. Canada's courts have now acknowledged that those brave and wonderful souls engaging in real democracy, did not, in fact, constitute any kind of "Emergency". But totalitarians of a fauxgressive flavor, couldn't speak up fast enough - demanding that their speech rights be silenced, their bank accounts be frozen, and their trucks seized and sold at auction. If Justin Turdeau or Chrystia the Banderite had a Substack - should it be censored? Why or why not? Are they not just fascists on the right 'team' - and therefore to be suffered the same rights as the rest of us?
Substack is wonderful oasis, in a vast desert of censorship and fraudulent narrative management schemes, properly exposed by the authors who produced the Twitter Files, and also by the discovery phases in cases like Missouri v. Biden, and Berenson v. Twitter. There was a time when those who self-identified as leftists would have been appalled and fighting mad about such gross abrogations of the 1st Amendment... Now it feels that their only outrage is that the Censorship is not complete ENOUGH...
When the ACLU defended the rights of Nazis, to march through Skokie, Illinois - they did it to uphold a universal right, which cannot be summarily "cancelled". The right of those Nazis to March there - is also the right of Anti-Fascists to march in the South, or in the Pacific Northwest.
The idea that Substack is a haven for Nazis - is patently absurd - and has never been PROVEN.
In any event - the answer for reprehensible speech is not some sort of elite and patrician censorship, of the sort currently being advocated, by Dick Cheney's CIA-intern cousin-of-color - the (Intelligence) Community Organizer - who essentially legalized the US Government LYING to the American people, with the "Smith-Mundt Modernization Act"... The answer is MORE SPEECH, better speech, better arguments, better debate and exchange of ideas - not less.
Substack is absolutely perfect the way that it is. The only people who object to the lack Imperial (ist) Narrative Management, on this platform - are the OPERATION MOCKINGBIRD stooges, like that NY Times Reporter whom you name - whose weak ideas, and perception management strategies fall-apart, when subjected to rational and uncontrolled scrutiny.
We see the same censorious efforts currently being directed at other bastions of beautiful 'wrongthink', like The Grayzone, The Electronic Intifadah, Mint Press News, Consortium News, Global Research, etc. etc...
I'm actually quite surprised to hear that Richard Spencer has a blog on Substack. I'm sure that like all the fine and decent people whose work I follow, that I'll never be troubled by its mere existence. Ironically, by pretending that Substack is the new "Stormfront" - you're actually generating something called "the Streisand Effect"... Were Spencer kicked off the platform - what actual benefit would that have? He and his handful of troglodyte followers wouldn't cease to exist... They'd just be forced onto another platform, and at that point, the occulted (and certainly awful) ideas would be impossible for those who oppose them, to find and refute. He and his handful of supporters would be that much harder to find, and to MOCK. Their ideas, unregistered and unrefuted would actually have greater impact on those susceptible to them - because we wouldn't be able to destroy them, in "notes", like this one.
As an apparently diehard fan of Obama's, as you appear to be... Are you unaware of the relationship between Netflix's least talented Executive, and serial abusers like Sumner Redstone? Who do you think was throwing money at him, at Beverly Hills Fundraisers and Malibu parties at David Geffen's? Barbara Streisand wasn't the only generous benefactor.
"If freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter." George Washington
"Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear."
[Special Message to the Congress on the Internal Security of the United States, August 8, 1950]
Harry S. Truman
"Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech."
Benjamin Franklin
"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."
United Nations, Universal Declaration of Human Rights
"If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."
[Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927)]
Louis Brandeis
"If you accept – and I do – that freedom of speech is important, then you are going to have to defend the indefensible. That means you are going to be defending the right of people to read, or to write, or to say, what you don’t say or like or want said. The Law is a huge blunt weapon that does not and will not make distinctions between what you find acceptable and what you don’t. This is how the Law is made. People making art find out where the limits of free expression are by going beyond them and getting into trouble. [...] The Law is a blunt instrument. It’s not a scalpel. It’s a club. If there is something you consider indefensible, and there is something you consider defensible, and the same laws can take them both out, you are going to find yourself defending the indefensible." Neil Gaiman
"There must be no barriers to freedom of inquiry … There is no place for dogma in science. The scientist is free, and must be free to ask any question, to doubt any assertion, to seek for any evidence, to correct any errors. Our political life is also predicated on openness. We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it and that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. And we know that as long as men are free to ask what they must, free to say what they think, free to think what they will, freedom can never be lost, and science can never regress." J. Robert Oppenheimer
"Contrary to what many well-intentioned people believe, the fact that we have multiple social media platforms today has little effect on spreading genuinely diverse narratives and perspectives. Social media is not only increasingly in the hands of a few billionaires strongly connected to the ruling class (e.g., Meta acquiring some of the most popular and active platforms), but also the fact that social media platforms operate based on carefully designed and manipulated algorithms to promote the viewpoints of the ruling class in what Cathy O’Neil has called ‘weapons of math destruction’, and what Safiya Umoja Noble insightfully calls ‘algorithms of oppression’, which apply not only to racial matters, but extend to every other matter that is potentially at odds with the desires of the ruling class." Louis Yako
So as you can see... There are some great minds that have covered this ground, before you. They did it better.