Save up all your tears

Shocked at Trump’s intention of giving Sanctuary cities exactly what they say they want — more illegal immigrants — Cher cries “what about Americans?”

Cher Tweet

I particularly liked the “(Many are VETS)” part, given current trends:

Democrats in Albany may be having second thoughts about blocking a bill that would help children of injured or fallen veterans go to college…

The committee instead approved $27 million in tuition assistance to so-called “dreamers” – students brought to the country by their parents illegally when they were children.

“Taxpayer money for free college for illegal immigrants… yet struck down a bill that provides free college tuition to gold star families. Absolutely wrong and insulting,” Assemblyman Michael Lipetri of Long Island’s 9th District added.

That a leftist like Cher is suddenly tweeting like a “deplorable” shows how effective Trump is at twisting them like a pretzel around their own politics.  It’s my fervent hope that undecided and independent Americans are looking at the Democrats’ reactions to his proposal to send illegals to “sanctuary” cities and asking “so wait… then why is it OK to inflict that on everyone else?”

We don’t need to just reelect Trump in 2020.  We need to give him a Congress fully prepared to support him.

Break the shackles

Vox has an important post up noting that the tech giants have the ability to shut down any speech they dislike, because they control the popular platforms.  As he puts it, “stop fighting on their ground.”  It’s important to reach the public beyond an echo chamber, so it’s not necessarily wrong to engage on YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, etc.  The problem is those platforms are strongly converged and in no way believe in unfettered free speech.  So if Christians, American traditionalists, classical conservatives and libertarians are going to continue to have a voice online, they are going to have to have alternative channels.

In other words, it’s time to break the monopolies.

I’ve already gotten into the habit of using DuckDuckGo for my online searches.  (In an era where “google” has become a verb, this has been an interesting exercise in habit-breaking.)  This avoids the way Google skews search results, and also denies them my traffic and data to track.  I strongly urge all my readers to do the same.

Other alternative platforms available and/or in development:

Instead of Google’s Chrome browser, try Brave.

Instead of the socially leftist Wikipedia, use Infogalactic for encyclopedic information.

Instead of YouTube (owned by Google), develop and view content on BitChute.

Instead of Twitter (which recently purged a number of conservatives and broke up a number of members’ “following” communities), try out Gab.

Instead of Facebook, look into Minds.

As time permits, I’m developing a presence on each of the above, and will eventually update the header on this blog so those who are inclined to do so can find me.  I’m still active on Twitter, but with the awareness they can shut me down at any point just like any other voice they want to silence.  The alternative sites listed above have publicly committed to free and open discussion.  What a concept.

Our use of a given platform is what gives it power and influence.  Stop feeding the tech giants who have already proven themselves hostile to anything short of Leftist conformity.  Support the efforts to break their stranglehold on the public conversation.  It will take time — and the breaking of deeply ingrained habits — for these alternatives to pose a threat to the stifled communities they are trying to supplant.

The rise of the Internet broke the information chokehold of the legacy corporate media.  It’s not surprising The Powers That Be have spent time and effort to reestablish that grip.  With your participation — and, more importantly, spreading the word — this new effort to break the monopoly again can flourish.

And so can the free exchange of ideas once more.


If you build it

they will come:

Gab ( is the free-speech alternative platform that has thrived because of Twitter’s SJW-led censorship policy which has driven away users. Now, it seems, Twitter is worried about the competition… ((…and they should be!  — Jemison))

Gab was founded by Torba following Twitter’s suspensions of conservative and libertarian accounts and has attracted nearly 150,000 disenfranchised users, including Breitbart Senior Editor MILO.

Since the platform’s conception, Torba has been banned from a Silicon Valley startup group, suspended from Facebook, and had his Gab features copied by Twitter. Apple’s App Store have also banned the app twice . . .

“The response to Gab from around the world has been nothing short of incredible,” said Torba to Breitbart Tech last year. “This is a movement, and something that the community is driving forward,” he explained.

“Folks are deleting their Twitter and Facebook accounts… They are waking up to the lies and censorship of Big Social,” he continued. “We will continue to build a product built by the people, for the people. We will continue to put people first and promote free speech for all.”

The Left has to monopolize the “conversations” in order to seem relevant.  The vast majority of their positions on just about every topic don’t hold up under close scrutiny.  Because of this, they are driven to maintain control of the flow of information.  During the days of the “big three” TV networks (1960s-1990s) this was relatively easy, and the same period saw Leftists gain control of most of academia.

The internet upended all of that.  Suddenly, not only did non-Leftists have a medium in which to speak, they also quickly found they were not as alone as they’d been led to think.  The rise of blogging just after 9/11 unleashed previously restrained conservative and libertarian viewpoints.

This was intolerable to the Left, of course.  So the past decade or so has seen a concerted effort to gain control of the “commanding heights” of the internet: Facebook, Twitter, Wikipedia, and so forth.  In the name of “eliminating hate” what they’ve really done is harass and eliminate competing points of view.  It’s Orwellian MiniTrue as its worst.

In order to restore free speech rather than stay cramped in the “safe space” echo chamber of Facebook, Twitter and Youtube, non-Leftists have begun building alternative platforms.  In addition to Gab, there is also Infogalactic (a substitute for Wikipedia), and other alternative platforms are under construction.  The builders of these systems are committed to allowing all speech, however repugnant, under the simple idea that in a free marketplace of ideas, truth wins out in the end.

It’s said the price of freedom is eternal vigilance.  Once these platforms are established, they will have to be ruthlessly policed against those who would again bend them into the service of Leftist ideology, rather than being a true marketplace of ideas.  It will take all of us to keep free speech free, both in reality and in cyberspace.

The alternatives are being built.  Come along and support them.

A quick plug

A friend of mine has started a new page on Facebook, called “The Right Road.”  It’s intended as a news aggregator of stories from a conservative point of view.  If you are active on that social media platform, take a moment to stop by and take a look.

One major consequence of the Internet that likely was not appreciated fully in its early days is the ability for like-minded people to find others who hold similar views.  I believe this has energized the small-government, classical economics Right, as they can now confirm they’re not some strange anomoly — there are actually large numbers of people with sympathetic views.  And that is why you will continue to hear loud calls for regulation of speech online.  The Left is intellectually and morally bankrupt, completely dependent on their corporate media lapdogs to appear even remotely coherent and worth considering in an election.  With Her Hillariness now crushed in her Quixotic quest for the throne of Mordor  White House, remember the modified saying: hell hath no fury like a Clinton scorned.

Be vigilant, be diligent, and above all, refuse to be silenced.  All manner of epithets will be trotted out to shame people into compliance.  Just remember who’s hurling those epithets, remember who’s on the side of Truth, hold your head high, and keep charging.

Unpersoning the opposition

Over the past week or so, Twitter appears to be, well, all a-twitter about removing from its online conversation voices with whom certain parties disagree:

On Friday, Twitter suspended the account of Robert Stacy McCain, a conservative blogger and dogged critic of feminism, apparently without warning or explanation. This has led, in true Twitter fashion, to protests under the hashtag #FreeStacy.

Only a few weeks earlier, Twitter had announced the creation of a “Trust and Safety Council,” to which it appointed Anita Sarkeesian, a feminist known for denouncing “sexism” in video games, a prominent figure in the Gamergate controversy—and oh yes, a frequent target of criticism from McCain. So it sure looks like the moment Twitter gave Sarkeesian the power to do so, she started blackballing her critics.

Suffice to say this is not an isolated incident, but appears to be part of a pattern of ideological banishment by the social media platform.  That, in turn, is part of an increasing tendency by the big online players to segregate out viewpoints they find ‘objectionable’ — a totalitarian tendency that should not be tolerated by any free-thinking person, regardless of political persuasion.

The real irony, of course, is this: that Twitter and supporters of its ban hammer are quick to point out that this can’t be a First Amendment issue, because Twitter is a private company and as such can run its business (and deal with its customers) anyway it likes (apparently including running its share price and market value into the ground after alienating the conservative half of the country).  The government, they say, should not get involved.

Isn’t that cute?  I happen to agree the government shouldn’t force Twitter to provide its services to anyone.  But in case the point is lost, here’s the always-sharp Iowahawk to explain:


Leftists have amassed so much power and influence they no longer see a need even to try to appear coherent or consistent in their arguments.  But as their blatant hypocrisy and will to power become more obvious, the pendulum–and the power–will begin to swing the other way. Indeed, there are signs this has already begun.  They would do well to consider that the ‘rules’ they are trying to impose easily cut both ways.  As H.L. Mencken once said, “there comes a time when every normal man is tempted to hoist the black flag (no quarter), spit on his hands, and begin slitting throats.”

For many of us on the Right, that time is just about here.  If it’s OK to silence online voices, or campaign to destroy someone’s livelihood or reputation simply because they hold views that don’t comport with the Left’s worldview, well… sauce for goose, gander, etc.  Bring back the Scarlet Letter and public shame, then.  Ridicule and ostracize those who insist, against all reasonable observation, that men and women are completely interchangeable parts in society.  Refuse to associate with the addled minds that still think, after more than a century and hundreds of millions of dead, that Marx has anything useful to offer to society.

Put these people beyond the pale the way they are trying to exclude the true heirs of the West.  Leftism, as I’ve said several times recently, is parasitical.  It doesn’t create; it perverts.  It doesn’t preserve; it breaks down.  It doesn’t empower; it constrains within a carefully controlled collective.  Now that this is becoming more widely recognized, its adherents shouldn’t be surprised when they are, in turn, banned from participation in Western Civilization 2.0.  Most of these agitators of various stripes and fetishes haven’t truly been ‘oppressed’ in two or three generations.  They decry ‘intolerance’ (conveniently defined as disagreement with them) while actually practicing it (‘unpersoning’ and targeting for harm those they disagree with).  As a result of their vacuous goading and preening today, they may well find out what oppression really looks like, when the inevitable backlash to their nonsense begins.

Not exactly news…

The headline to the article says it all:  “Many boomers don’t plan to leave their children an inheritance.”

Upending the conventional notion of parents carefully tending their financial estates to be passed down at the reading of their wills, many baby boomers say they instead plan to spend the money on themselves while they’re alive.

In a survey of millionaire boomers by investment firm U.S. Trust, only 49% said it was important to leave money to their children when they die. The low rate was a big surprise for a company that for decades has advised wealthy people how to leave money to their heirs.

“We were like ‘wow,'” said Keith Banks, U.S. Trust president.

This shouldn’t surprise anyone… for years there’ve been bumper stickers and T-shirts saying “I’m spending my kids’ inheritance.”  On the one hand, it’s true children shouldn’t live life based on the expectation of what material windfall they may receive upon the death of their elders.  But on the other hand, the sentiments expressed by Boomers in the linked article culminate a theme that has dominated their generation for decades: it’s all about them.  Previous generations in America sought to build and improve–not only their own lives, but those of their descendants.  In the lifetime of one generation, though, the Boomers have managed to squander nearly all the capital built up over the previous two centuries.

I realize I’m painting with a broad brush: not all members of this demographic are completely self-absorbed.  But as a group they’ve left a very large wake.  The excesses they celebrated as teens morphed into an “anything goes” mentality.  Limits?  Boundaries?  Responsibilities to others?  What are those?

As a result of this mindset, it’s not just the individual family legacies that are at stake.  It’s quite possible the “live for today” approach placed our nation and its way of life at risk.  Ultimately, the inheritance the Boomers may fail to pass on is that of a free, prosperous, stable Republic.

“Boom,” indeed.

Saving face, via buying Facebook?

Of all the potential peer competitors to the U.S., China seems the most savvy in the information domain.  Rather than confront America’s physical military might (still formidable, but bound to decline in the years ahead due to war-weariness and our economic situation), their leaders emphasize a long-term approach worthy of Sun Tzu — exploiting the West’s reliance on information technology (GPS, satellite communications, and so on). 

In that light, this little venture is interesting for a number of reasons…

Beijing approached a fund that buys stock from former Facebook employees to see if it could assemble a stake large enough “to matter.”  …

The business site says that “sovereign wealth funds are pretty distinct from their governments.”

Perhaps Norway’s fund is, but not China’s. The Communist Party, despite three decades of economic reform, insists on its monopoly of political power. And to maintain that monopoly, it tightly controls its own instrumentalities. That’s especially true at this moment because the Party is in the midst of the most comprehensive crackdown on society since the 1989 Beijing Spring. Chinese leaders clearly view social media as a threat to their rule, especially after seeing its force-multiplying effect in the ongoing Arab Spring protests that have toppled governments.

In short, China’s sovereign wealth fund, which is no more independent of the Communist Party than the Beijing municipal government, wants to buy a stake in the world’s most prominent social networking site because Chinese leaders want to control social media. And they hope to do that as part of their comprehensive campaign to dominate the conversation about China—not just inside the country but around the world as well.

Zuckerberg, in the words of one reporter, “believes that Facebook can be an agent of change in China, as it has been in countries such as Egypt and Tunisia.” After the disastrous China experiences of Yahoo and Google and the troubled history of Microsoft there—not to mention Beijing’s recent tirade against foreign social media—the Facebook founder appears both arrogant and naïve.

Chief Operating Officer Sheryl Sandberg is reportedly “wary about the compromises Facebook would have to make to do business there.” If she loses her argument with Zuckerberg and Facebook enters China, the company will eventually be subject to demands to censor its sites, those both inside and outside China. That’s apparently why the Chinese want to own a big stake in Facebook. They are, in short, looking for control in the long run.

Companies keep going to China with hopes of “being instruments of change.”  Yet history shows that trying to enter that market results in changing the company, not the country.  Globilization is costing America its soul.  We’re already acclimated to buying products produced in China (or elsewhere) under conditions we’d never tolerate at home.  Do we dare allow the demonstrated potential of social media as a check on authoritarianism to be similarly undermined?