George Friedman talks Trump, talks Bannon, talks Zeihan

In the following video, George Friedman tells why the expert class has been disgraced since the 2008 financial meltdown. In the end there will be nations, he says. The reign of the unelected and international experts is over. The order that existed in the 70 years since the Second World War is coming to an end.

Friedman is at pains to insist that the pain of the 2007 financial crash was distributed unevenly; the expert class made out like bandits, the working classes are unemployed and in an oxycodone death crisis. This is not sustainable. Hence Trump, Orban, the Italian political crisis, nationalist movements everywhere.

“The nation is back”, says Friedman.

I listened to some smooth-talking London-based millionaire bond trader yesterday tell me that Brexit will never happen, that the vote for it will mean nothing in the end. I refrained from saying he was the same sort of intelligent insider who thought a Trump victory would never happen. My impression is that the expert class has not learned a thing, but will have to be taught through some hard blows to their pocket books and to their self-esteem.

 

“Look at how your income is distributed (within a nation). That is you future”.-George Friedman

Germany’s Islamization

 

 

 

The other night I listened to two intelligent Germans discuss the state of Germany and the Islamic threat to it. In brief, it is worse than it is reported, and that under-reporting is the essence of what they complain about. The political establishment – all three major parties – are devoted to preventing public discussion of what people perceive with their own eyes.

They observe from the news they gather from informal channels, such as friends and gossip, that there is much more Islamic crime than reported. Islamic crime has had the effect of rendering German women much less safe than they had been within recent historical memory.

Now none of this is news. It  was apparent from the tone and substance of what my guests were saying that:

  • the under -reporting and covering up of Islamic crime is deliberate state policy;
  • people are afraid to speak freely; Germans think very carefully about what they will say in the presence of friends and strangers;
  • Official state organs, such as the public broadcast system, are fully complicit in this suppression;
  • Indeed, they may be compelled to suppress news of Islamic crime (that was not clear from the context);
  • The three major parties (Christian Democrat, the Social Democrats and the Free Democrats) are united in their opposition to free expression by ordinary people of any form of anti-Islamic views, including especially views that are simply observations of what they have experienced in their own lives.

The conversation lasted over an hour and we listened, fascinated, to some sincere and considered thought about the state of their country. They were enjoying the freedom of speech that came from being three thousand miles away from home. Their anxiety for the state of their country was palpable.

In passing they mentioned the case of the writer Thilo Sarrazin, whose book, Deutschland schafft sich ab (Germany is abolishing itself) has created a huge stir.

Citing the Wikipedia article, which mentions his book:

Within two months, Sarrazin’s book Deutschland schafft sich ab (Germany Is Doing Away With Itself or Germany Is Abolishing Itself), published end of August 2010, became the best-selling book on politics by a German-language author in a decade, with overall sales hitting 1.1 million copies[4] and the first editions sold out within a matter of hours or days. In the 13th edition Sarrazin added a foreword commenting on the nationwide debate his book has sparked.[22] As of May 2011, 1.5 million copies had been sold.[23]

Sarrazin’s views and criticism of them[edit]

Sarrazin advocates a restrictive immigration policy (with the exception of the highly skilled) and the reduction of state welfare benefits. There were severe reactions to his statements on economic and immigration policy in Berlin, which were published in September 2009 in Lettre International, a German cultural quarterly. In it he described many Arab and Turkish immigrants as unwilling to integrate. He said, among other things:

Integration requires effort from those that are to be integrated. I will not show respect for anyone who is not making that effort. I do not have to acknowledge anyone who lives by welfare, denies the legitimacy of the very state that provides that welfare, refuses to care for the education of his children and constantly produces new little headscarf-girls. This holds true for 70 percent of the Turkish and 90 percent of the Arab population in Berlin.[24][25][26]

He has also said regarding Islam, “No other religion in Europe makes so many demands. No immigrant group other than Muslims is so strongly connected with claims on the welfare state and crime. No group emphasizes their differences so strongly in public, especially through women’s clothing. In no other religion is the transition to violence, dictatorship and terrorism so fluid.”[27]

Sarrazin’s statements were criticized by the chairman of the Interior Committee of the German BundestagSebastian Edathy (SPD), the ver.di union and the political scientist Gerd Wiegel. The Central Council of Jews in Germany has strongly criticized Sarrazin, condemning him as racist.[28][29][30] Sigmar Gabriel, the General Secretary of the SPD, condemned Sarrazin for his eugenic approach.[31]

Sarrazin’s book came under criticism for claiming that Germany’s immigrant Muslim population is reluctant to integrate and tends to rely more on social services than to be productive. Moreover, he calculates that their population growth may well overwhelm the German population within a couple of generations at the current rate, and that their intelligence is lower as well. He proposes stringent reforms for the welfare system to rectify the problems.[32][33] The first edition of his book sold out within a few days. By the end of the year, the book had become Germany’s number 1 hard-cover non-fiction bestseller for the year and was still at the top of the lists.[34]

and further from the article:

Henryk Broder, the Spiegel commentator, offered an explanation for attacks on Sarrazin’s statements. “And there’s a second trick that’s being used now: he’s being accused of anti-Semitism. If you could accuse him of anything, it’s philo-Semitism, because he wrongly thinks Jews are more intelligent than others,” Broder said. He added, “But of course, with an anti-Semitism accusation you can really go after someone, because anti-Semitism of course is no longer acceptable in Germany, and rightly so. There is no substantive debate here at all – the issue is that a nation gets up, as it were, they all agree and they take it all out on a scapegoat who they’d like to send into the desert. It’s very disturbing.”[44]

“Political correctness is silencing an important debate” said Matthias Matussek (de) of Der Spiegel magazine. “Sarrazin’s findings on the failed integration of Turkish and Arab immigrants are beyond any doubt. He has been forced out of the Bundesbank. The SPD wanted to expel him from the party, too. Invitations previously extended to Sarrazin are being withdrawn. The culture page editors at the German weekly Die Zeit are crying foul and the editors at the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung are damning Sarrazin for passages he didn’t even write. But what all these technicians of exclusion fail to see is that you cannot cast away the very thing that Sarrazin embodies: the anger of people who are sick and tired—after putting a long and arduous process of Enlightenment behind them—of being confronted with pre-Enlightenment elements that are returning to the center of our society. They are sick of being cursed or laughed at when they offer assistance with integration. And they are tired about reading about Islamist associations that have one degree of separation from terrorism, of honor killings, of death threats against cartoonists and filmmakers.[45]

Heredity: It is more important than environment

By far the largest factor in who you are is your heredity, not your environment. And this drives the Left to paroxysms of denial.

Here are some extracts from an article on twin studies from Quillette, which is an excellent source of information.

 

In 2000, the psychologist Eric Turkheimer concluded that the evidence from behavioral genetic data was consistent enough to summarize in three laws. The first law holds that all human traits are heritable (i.e., genetic differences account for phenotypic differences) to some degree. This assertion may not seem all that surprising today, although the word ‘all’ is still considered provocative by some. However, twin studies have produced copious data demonstrating that almost every trait is heritable to some degree or another.

The remaining two laws concern environmental influence. The second of these holds that the effect of being raised in the same family is smaller than the effect of genes….

The third law holds that a substantial portion of the variation in complex human behavioral traits is not accounted for by either the effects of the genes or families. In other words, while about 50 percent of the variation is due to the environment, this environmental effect does not come from the family. Instead, it may be produced by the wider culture, society, the neighborhood, school, peer-groups and friends, but also simply chance: random encounters or openings in the social hierarchy, cosmic rays that damage a piece of DNA, neurons that go zig instead of zag, and so on.

Twin studies have uncovered the enormous importance of genetics. They have laid to rest the notion that parents are omnipotent sculptors, and a child is a piece of clay. They have hammered another nail into the coffin of the Freudian guilt complex, where everything that goes wrong in an individual’s life may be attributable to poor parenting.

 

Exterminate carbon units!

If you like mass doom you will like this article . Borrowing a theme from the television show Dr. Who, occasionally nature tries to exterminate life on earth, as the Daleks try to do to humans in science fiction.

Bianca Bosker, writing in this month’s Atlantic about a lady paleontologist who does not accept the Chicxulub asteroid extinction theory, has this to say,

Over the course of its 4.5-billion-year existence, the Earth has occasionally lashed out against its inhabitants. At five different times, mass extinctions ensued.

Seven hundred million years ago, the oceans’ single-cell organisms started linking together to form multicellular creatures. Four hundred and forty-four million years ago, nearly all of those animals were wiped out by the planet’s first global annihilation. The Earth recovered—fish appeared in the seas, four-legged amphibians crawled onto land—and then, 372 million years ago, another catastrophe destroyed three-quarters of all life. For more than 100 million years after that, creatures thrived. The planet hosted the first reptiles, the first shelled eggs, the first plants with seeds. Forests swarmed with giant dragonflies whose wings stretched two feet across, and crawled with millipedes nearly the length of a car. Then, 252 million years ago, the “Great Dying” began. When it finished, 96 percent of all species had vanished. The survivors went forth and multiplied—until, 201 million years ago, another mass extinction knocked out half of them.

The age of the dinosaurs opened with continents on the move. Landmasses that had spent millions of years knotted together into the supercontinent of Pangaea began to drift apart, and oceans—teeming with sponges, sharks, snails, corals, and crocodiles—flooded into the space between them. It was swimsuit weather most places on land: Even as far north as the 45th parallel, which today roughly marks the U.S.–Canada border, the climate had a humid, subtropical feel. The North Pole, too warm for ice, grew lush with pines, ferns, and palm-type plants. The stegosaurs roamed, then died, and tyrannosaurs took their place. (More time separates stegosaurs from tyrannosaurs—about 67 million years—than tyrannosaurs from humans, which have about 66 million years between them.) It was an era of evolutionary innovation that yielded the first flowering plants, the earliest placental mammals, and the largest land animals that ever lived. Life was good—right up until it wasn’t.

 

Later, writing about the explosion of an Icelandic volcano called Laki,  which wiped out a fifth of Iceland’s population, more gloom ensues:

 

On June 8, 1783, Iceland’s Laki volcano began to smoke. The ground wrenched open “like an animal tearing apart its prey” and out spilled a “flood of fire,” according to an eyewitness’s diary. Laki let loose clouds of sulfur, fluorine, and hydrofluoric acid, blanketing Europe with the stench of rotten eggs. The sun disappeared behind a haze so thick that at noon it was too dark to read. (Unlike the cone-shaped stratovolcanoes from third-grade science class, both Deccan and Laki were fissure eruptions, which fracture the Earth’s crust, spewing lava as the ground pulls apart.)

Destruction was immediate. Acid rain burned through leaves, blistered unprotected skin, and poisoned plants. People and animals developed deformed joints, softened bones, cracked gums, and strange growths on their bodies—all symptoms of fluorine poisoning. Mass death began eight days after the eruption. More than 60 percent of Iceland’s livestock died within a year, along with more than 20 percent of its human population. And the misery spread. Benjamin Franklin reported a “constant fog” over “a great part of North America.” Severe droughts plagued India, China, and Egypt. Cold temperatures in Japan ushered in what is remembered as the “year without a summer,” and the nation suffered the worst famine in its history. Throughout Europe, crops turned white and withered, and in June, desiccated leaves covered the ground as though it were October. Europe’s famine lasted three years; historians have blamed Laki for the start of the French Revolution.

 

The article is relevant for a number of reasons. First, it details planetary catastrophes have already occurred, which should sober anyone. Second, it narrates an unresolved  battle of words between those who believe that dinosaurs were wiped out by the Chicxulub asteroid and those who think they were wiped out by massive (fantastically massive) volcanic outpourings that produced the basaltic plateau that covers most of India, the Deccan Traps. Third, it lends credence to my idea that a great many scientific disputes operate at any given time. When you hear some idiot say that “the science is settled”, you know you are hearing a political statement. The science is never settled. It is only provisionally accepted in some quarters for some people, for some time.

 

Education despite universities

Caitlin Flanagan writes in this month’s Atlantic about why Jordan Peterson is so important. What it points to is that a liberal education is now being offered on Youtube, and not in university.

The young men voted for Hillary, they called home in shock when Trump won, they talked about flipping the House, and they followed Peterson to other podcasts—to Sam Harris and Dave Rubin and Joe Rogan. What they were getting from these lectures and discussions, often lengthy and often on arcane subjects, was perhaps the only sustained argument against identity politics they had heard in their lives.

That might seem like a small thing, but it’s not. With identity politics off the table, it was possible to talk about all kinds of things—religion, philosophy, history, myth—in a different way. They could have a direct experience with ideas, not one mediated by ideology. All of these young people, without quite realizing it, were joining a huge group of American college students who were pursuing a parallel curriculum, right under the noses of the people who were delivering their official educations.

“They could have a direct experience with ideas, not one mediated by ideology.”

Further, Flanagan writes:

But there is no coherent reason for the left’s obliterating and irrational hatred of Jordan Peterson. What, then, accounts for it?

It is because the left, while it currently seems ascendant in our houses of culture and art, has in fact entered its decadent late phase, and it is deeply vulnerable. The left is afraid not of Peterson, but of the ideas he promotes, which are completely inconsistent with identity politics of any kind.

They – reasonable, moderate centrists – are starting to wake up. That is my conclusion from the publication and writing of this article. They have understood the bankruptcy of the cultural Left and they are starting to see their children have realized this too.

———————————

Post Script:

She could have included Ben Shapiro, and Victor Davis Hanson in this list of educational shows or speakers.

Cultural appropriation and heresy hunting

 

From Kevin Williamson in National Review, for the abject surrender of a literary magazine to some leftist goons on the issue of black English in a poem, for which it issued a grovelling apology.

 

In the morally illiterate idiom of the moment, a white poet’s ‘appropriation’ of Black English serves ‘white supremacy,’ putting it in the same category of things as lynchings, cross-burnings, and segregation.

The American Left, having lost the contest of ideas — the Left’s last big idea was Marxism, which never has been successfully replaced as an intellectual foundation — is in the grip of moral hysteria, and its main occupation is heretic-hunting, inventing ever-more-absurd pretexts for simply declaring beyond the pale any idea or intellectual opponent progressives cannot successfully engage or, nearly as often, to bounce any white male occupying cultural space the heretic-hunters covet.

And there you have it, people.

It is we who need perestroika and glasnost, restructuring and openness. Fortunately it is coming through the agency of Donald Trump, the icebreaker, however slowly.

This anti-white stuff is coming for you, dude

 

Explicit anti-white racism is now de rigeur in our universities. If you think this is temporary, think again.

First demonstrate your contribution to “diversity”, as defined by the academic elites who seek to abolish themselves because, to no one’s surprize, they are white.The College Fix reports

For Cal Poly, requiring the diversity statement is one part of a larger effort school officials are engaged in to “improve diversity” via dozens of various endeavors outlined in its 30-page action plan. As part of the diversity initiatives plan, the university also has a goal of “increasing, in a Proposition 209-compliant manner, the hiring of diverse faculty utilizing cluster hires every other year.”

It is evident to me and to a growing number of reasonable people that the entire university sector is overinflated and needs drastic reduction of its financial resources. The government must stop subsidizing this racialist evil. And stop enserfing our children to debt for a useless and dangerous miseducation.

Here is a portion of Cal Poly’s action plan. To read it is to see the anti-white future:

 

Office of University Diversity and Inclusion
Diversity Action Initiatives
Items in bold are key initiatives.
Future Actions Initiative Anticipated Implementation Department(s) Description
Cultural Humility Institute
Winter 2019
Vice President for Student Affairs, Office of University Diversity and Inclusion
Cultural humility is a lifelong process of self-reflection, self-critique, and commitment to understanding and respecting different points of view and engaging with others humbly, authentically and from a place of learning (Tervalon & Murray-Garcia, 1998).

Student Diversity Advisory Committee
Fall 2018
Office of University Diversity & Inclusion
An advisory committee to the Office of University Diversity & Inclusion made up of student representatives to help guide work related to student concerns and to gain input on initiatives.

Campus-Wide Allyship Trainings

Fall 2018
Office of University Diversity & Inclusion and Cross Cultural Centers
An expansion of the currently offered Allyship workshops on Race & Ethnicity and Gender & Sexuality offered by the Cross Cultural Centers.

Collective Impact Strategic Action Plan Open Forum
Fall 2018
Office of University Diversity & Inclusion
The Inclusive Excellence Council will review the Collective Impact Recommendations and create a strategic plan to be shared in a Fall 2018 Open Forum.

Collective Impact Strategy Group Recommendations
June 2018
Office of University Diversity & Inclusion
The three Strategy Groups will have short- and long-term recommendations outlined.

Mandatory Implicit Bias Trainings for MPPs and Confidential Employees
Spring 2018
Office of University Diversity & Inclusion and Employee and Organization Development
The “Exposing Hidden Bias” workshop will be mandatory for all MPPs and Confidential Employees.

Collective Impact Listening Sessions
Spring 2018
Office of University Diversity & Inclusion
Open sessions reflecting the 3 Collective Impact Strategy Groups: Campus Climate, Curriculum, and Recruit & Retain. The sessions will garner input from participants.

All Faculty and Staff Association Meeting
Spring 2018
Office of University Diversity & Inclusion
A gathering of representatives from the 5 established Faculty Staff Associations.
Expand BEACoN mentors to include staff and alumni *
TBD
Office of University Diversity & Inclusion
Include opportunities for staff and alumni to provide mentorship for underrepresented students

Campus Climate Survey
2019
Office of University Diversity & Inclusion
A survey to assess campus climate will be re-administered.

New Employee Orientation
2017
Employee and Organization Development
An introductory training for new employees at Cal Poly. Onboarding for all new staff positions, including a diversity and inclusion segment.

BEACoN Research Mentor Program
2017
Office of University Diversity & Inclusion
The BEACoN Research Mentor Program pairs students with research mentorship under the guidance of faculty. Enhanced the faculty/student mentorship program to add paid research opportunities.

Collective Impact Process for Advancing Diversity & Inclusion at Cal Poly
2017
Office of University Diversity & Inclusion
The Collective Impact approach is premised on the belief that no single policy, department, organization or program can tackle or solve the increasingly complex social problems we face as a society. The approach calls for multiple organizations or entities from different sectors to abandon their own agenda in favor of a common agenda, shared measurement and alignment of effort. Unlike collaboration or partnership, Collective Impact initiatives have centralized infrastructure – known as a backbone organization – with dedicated staff whose role is to help participating organizations shift from acting alone to acting in concert.

Vice President for Diversity & Inclusion
2017
President’s Cabinet
The lead position in OUDI was elevated to executive level for greater impact.
Established the Chicana/o Latino/a and Indigenous Alumni Chapter
2017
Alumni Association
Supports and creates community for Latinx alumni.

Faculty Associate Positions
2017
Office of University Diversity & Inclusion
Faculty Associates are hired by OUDI to gain a faculty perspective in diversity and inclusion work.

Implicit Bias Trainings for Staff and Faculty
2017
Office of University Diversity & Inclusion and Employee and Organization Development
A two-part implicit bias workshop series that brings attention to the unconscious biases we all possess and provides some strategies for overcoming thier impact in our work and relationships.

Implicit Bias Trainings for Faculty Search Committees
2016
Office of University Diversity & Inclusion and Academic Personnel
This training introduces participants to implicit bias in decision-making and hiring. It is required for all tenure/tenure-track faculty search committees.

Diversity in the Curriculum Training for Faculty
2016
Office of University Diversity & Inclusion and the Center for Teaching Learning & Technology
A summer week-long workshop designed for faculty to incorporate diversity and inclusion topics into their curricula.

Bias Incident Response Team Established
2016
Office of University Diversity & Inclusion and Dean of Students
The Bias Incident Response Team (BIRT) is co-chaired by the Dean of Students and the VP for Diversity & Inclusion. The team meets to discuss the appropriate course of action on hate/bias incidents on campus. BIRT also works to support and provide resources to those who are targets and/or witness acts of bias in our campus community.

==========

Remember:

Diversity = uniformity

Inclusion = exclusion

Inflating your way to survival

In the crash of 2008, and the subsequent measures to stave off a very real global crash of liquidity, certain measures were taken. These had the effect of saving the large banks and financial institutions, and the owning classes, worldwide. In the ensuing ten years, the elites took care of themselves very well. Anyone who had assets, gained; those who offered labour have had to live on no wage increases. So says Steve Bannon. Those with capital gained, while over half the US population cannot put $US400 to cover emergencies.

Socialism – the government covers your downside risk – for the rich, capitalism for the poor.

Start watching around 14:00 minutes. Prior to that is interesting but they are making irrelevant points. This is the best, most cogent, analysis of why Trump came to power. My left wing friends (I have a couple) would probably agree. The essential argument ends by 20:55 into the interview.

Bannon explicitly excludes Obama from any blame for this situation.

In my opinion, while the populist/nationalist movement appears radical, it is actually conservative in intention, trying to save the capitalist system from its current situation where, to repeat, there is socialism for the rich, capitalism for the poor.

 

Anti-whiteness

 

 

 

A pithy exploration of the Left’s anti-whiteness agenda is offer today at Front Page Mag, authored by John Perazzo.  It concludes:

The attack on whiteness is just the latest and most fashionable manifestation of the left’s progressive racism. As racial attitudes have softened in the years since the magisterial 1964 Civil Rights Act, as racial intermarriage has become more commonplace, as what W.E.B. Du Bois and other radicals called “the color line” disappears to the point of nothingness, the left has had to work doubly hard to substantiate its belief that America, appearance to the contrary, is a hell of bigotry and racial violence. That is why it has come up with “whiteness,” and why it works so hard to convince the credulous that racism is not an act committed by an identifiable individual but a “structure,” invisible to its white beneficiaries, which allows them to live lives of power and certainty while trampling, without meaning to do so, the hopes of people of color.

“Whiteness” is the last refuge of scoundrels.

 

I tell lefties in vain that this stuff is coming for them, just as restrictions on speech are. They do not heed, they do not listen. They think they are on the winning side. They are useful idiots. Freedom is indivisible, as George Jonas would have it.

Alan Borovoy you have a lot to answer for

I believe that Alan Borovoy, father of Canada’s hate speech legislation, repented of his earlier enthusiasm for hate speech legislation and its expansion into human rights codes by the time it began to be used by Human Rights Commissions to suppress the likes of Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn. At least his old friend and sparring partner George Jonas thought so:

It always puzzled me why Alan, a civil libertarian by vocation as well as avocation, would burn the midnight oil to set up laws and institutions designed to reduce the very liberties he was safeguarding and promoting by day. The answer, it seemed, was that he never imagined human rights commissions, a progeny of the progressive left, could be a threat to free expression. In my column a few days ago I wrote: “It never occurred to [Alan] that civil liberties can be threatened from the left…..

Initially, Alan, like many left-liberal social activists, believed he and his comrades could regulate conduct without affecting expression or conscience. After all, how could prohibiting discrimination in employment and housing turn into censorship in the media?

Unfettered by the illusions of the left, conservative civil libertarians could see it easily. Deny liberty to conduct; it’ll soon be denied to speech, or vice versa. Freedom is indivisible. Cutting it in half means killing it. King Solomon understood this in relation to babies; civil libertarians like Alan didn’t think it applied to civil liberties. He disdained any talk about “the thin edge of the wedge.” In the 1980s, with civil liberties already halfway down the throat of the voracious state, Alan was still dismissing the slippery slope as a shopworn myth. It took him another decade and a half to change his mind.”

The left wing assault on speech is only gathering strength, because now it is unhinged from reliance on courts or quasi-judicial bodies like human rights commissions. Now it exercises its whims through young twenty years old social justice warriors in the platform oligopolies: Facebook, Google, Youtube, Apple and Spotify. No such thing as fair process, or rights,  hinder the process. What the Left does not like, is “hate”. That is to say, all speech not conforming to the left wing mindset of our times is hate: sexist racist fascist transphobic Islamophobic nyah nyah nyah.

 

William Jacobson in Legal Insurrection has it right:

The targeted takedown of Jones was strategic.

Few people want to defend the substance of his content. So CNN gets to wrap itself in self-righteousness, even though it was an act by CNN of political activism.

And yes, these are private companies who can do what the government cannot. We understand that. But they have taken on a role approaching public utilities, without whom we can’t communicate politically.

This is something we’ve covered a lot in the past year, how an oligopoly of left-leaning high tech firms control virtually all of our social media interactions. In my dreadful 9th Anniversary post, I wrote:

If the assault on the Electoral College was the game changer for me, a runner up was waking up to implications of the concentration of power in a small number of social media and internet companies who have been weaponized to shut down speech and expression. Google, Facebook, Twitter and two handfuls of other companies now completely control our ability to communicate with each other, while internet backbone companies are poised to block internet access altogether.

Imagine living in a repressive country in which the government blocked access to and suppressed internet content. You don’t need to move. It’s coming here but from private industry. This is, in many ways, more dangerous than government suppression of free speech because at least in the U.S. the government is subject to the First Amendment, and can be voted out of office.

The social justice warriors have moved from shouting down speakers on campus to pressuring high tech companies to expand the definition of “hate speech” and “community standards” to the point that anything right of center is at risk….

And further from Jacobson:

These social justice censors start with neo-Nazis, then define everyone who opposes them as the equivalent of neo-Nazis. So they move on to Alex Jones, then the NRA, and won’t stop until mainstream conservatives are banned.

Yet lunatic leftist #Resistance conspiracies proliferate on these same social media platforms without hindrance.

One of the best comments I saw about the Jones takedown was from David Reaboi on Twitter:

When the only thing you’ve got to say about the deplatforming of Jones is, “it’s a private business”—for conservatives, it’s a tell.

It means you don’t see the larger fight about deplatforming and Left’s “hate speech” restrictions to expression. You don’t know what time it is.

That is spot on. There is a war being fought for the turf controlled by the big tech social media oligopolies, and when the openness of these forums is lost, we’re back to the equivalent of Samizdat.

Sargon of Akkad has this to say: