The end ofcivilisations

#21
Free speech and a free press are also important to a free society, but censorship on media platforms continues to get worse.

For instance, FB is censoring the NY Post story about the Biden emails.

I think the tech companies are going all out for Biden because if Trump wins, they are going to be regulated by the government and forced to stop censoring conservatives.
 
#23

You would think the tech companies would know how the internet works:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect

The Streisand effect is a social phenomenon that occurs when an attempt to hide, remove, or censor information has the unintended consequence of further publicizing that information, often via the Internet. It is named after American entertainer Barbra Streisand, whose attempt to suppress photographs of her residence in Malibu, California, inadvertently drew further attention to it in 2003.​
 
#24
I think the tech companies are going all out for Biden because if Trump wins, they are going to be regulated by the government and forced to stop censoring conservatives.
I occasionally post on quora.com so I have an account on that site. Today I went to the site through a link returned by a search engine. I noticed an alert with questions the system thought I could answer - "Why would people want to vote for Trump?". I answered several similar questions and then I got an alert and e-mail telling me my answers (to questions the quora web site gave me to answer ) violated their policy and were being suppressed. I didn't post anything nasty or derogatory just explained conservative policy in decorous bland terms.
 
#25
Well I have seen video of mobs burning districts across the US, mobs preventing free speech at universities, etc. Are you saying these things didn't happen or that there were equivalent acts performed by the 'right'?
No, I'm not saying those things didn't happen. What I am saying is that those who participated in violence and rioting are a) a very small portion of our population and b) were not all extreme leftist advocates. Is this really that hard to understand or are you being purposefully obtuse?

I wonder why you think the field was so weak. My feeling is that a clique in the Democratic Party wanted a puppet at the top who would let the NeoCons get their way. Obama seemed to resist the Neocons until the second term - then something went wrong. Although to some extent he resisted the Neocons to the end by refusing to be drawn into war by the (almost certainly)fake gas attacks in Syria.
I don't know why it was weak. Sanders is unelectable because of his socialist platform. Biden is old and part of the establishment which people rightfully see as a detracting quality. The rest of the field was a mix of inexperience and unfamiliarity. Pretty simple. No need to invoke an unprovable conspiracy theory regarding shadowy neocon puppet masters in the background, but what should I expect from this community? Its a 24/7 festival of conspiracies around here these days. ;)

Does that mean that you will vote for an independent candidate (are there any?), or not vote?
Nope, as I've stated elsewhere I'm voting to remove Trump from office (i.e., a vote for Biden).

Many people think that Biden was cognitively impaired even before he was chosen to represent the Democrats - if true, that is totally absurd. If Trump is such a flawed character, how come the Democratic Party could not find anyone more reasonable to oppose him?
Again, I don't have an answer to that question. Biden won the ticket as he has the best chance to win. That speaks to Trump's weakness right there.

To say that America will survive another four years regardless of which side wins could be very naive. The nuclear threat is a real menace to the world - far more severe than anything that 'Climate Change' could ever deliver - and every bit of Neocon tinkering around in the world to create turmoil risks something uncontrollable happening.
Fear mongering David, just base fear mongering. We've had nukes for 70 years through democratic and republican administrations. No one has pressed the button. But now Biden presents an existential threat to break that streak? You sound very Trumpian yourself.

We'll see what happens in under three weeks. (Hopefully) Will be an interesting ride for sure.
 
#26
An interesting timeline.

2013:

https://nypost.com/2020/09/05/joe-biden-once-joked-about-china-helping-him-become-president/

Joe Biden jokes about "accepting Chinese help to seek the Oval Office".

2017:

https://nypost.com/2020/10/15/emails-reveal-how-hunter-biden-tried-to-cash-in-big-with-chinese-firm/

Hunter Biden pursued lucrative deals involving China’s largest private energy company — including one that he said would be “interesting for me and my family,” emails obtained by The Post show.
2020:

https://thepostmillennial.com/chinas-president-tells-military-to

China’s President Xi Jinping has issued a notice to his country’s military that they should prepare for war, signalling a significant change in the superpower’s foreign policy.
Over the past few months, tensions have escalated between Taiwan and China. Chinese warplanes and navy vessels, for instance, have been spotted nearing Taiwanese waters.

These two countries have had a deeply bitter relationship since the Chinese Civil War, with the losing nationalist faction fleeing to the island of Taiwan. Since then, Chinese foreign policy has been set upon returning Taiwan to their control, while Taiwanese domestic policy is centred around resisting Chinese hegemony.

China has it's hooks in a number of Western governments now. What actions will it take if Biden wins the election?


https://www.thestar.com/news/canada...read-in-canada-says-author-of-new-report.html

https://www.aspi.org.au/report/party-speaks-you

The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is strengthening its influence by co-opting representatives of ethnic minority groups, religious movements, and business, science and political groups. It claims the right to speak on behalf of those groups and uses them to claim legitimacy.


These efforts are carried out by the united front system, which is a network of party and state agencies responsible for influencing groups outside the party, particularly those claiming to represent civil society. It manages and expands the United Front, a coalition of entities working towards the party’s goals.1 The CCP’s role in this system’s activities, known as united front work, is often covert or deceptive.2
 
Last edited:
#27
No, I'm not saying those things didn't happen. What I am saying is that those who participated in violence and rioting are a) a very small portion of our population and b) were not all extreme leftist advocates. Is this really that hard to understand or are you being purposefully obtuse?
The point is that the police were constrained by local (Democrat) politicians into not moving in on the violence. They also refused the offer of national guard deployments to stem the violence.

Why did they do that? Numbers of innocent people were killed in those confrontations. I don't know what the cost of all that turned out to be.

There was also the fact that at the same time ordinary citizens were supposed to socially distance themselves!

David
 
#28
The point is that the police were constrained by local (Democrat) politicians into not moving in on the violence. They also refused the offer of national guard deployments to stem the violence.

Why did they do that? Numbers of innocent people were killed in those confrontations. I don't know what the cost of all that turned out to be.

There was also the fact that at the same time ordinary citizens were supposed to socially distance themselves!

David
So what's your point? That the Democratic party, both elected officials and the 150 some odd million registered Democrats are solely responsible for rioting?

There's no balance to any of this. Again, you seem to be putting forth a Republican is 100% right, Democrat is 100% wrong (or at fault) philosophy here.

Of course Trump was just a victim in all this social unrest. Literally, nothing he could have done to help the situation other than offer military force (which runs contrary to what you seem to see as his non-violence virtue).
 
#29
David,

If the democrats start to act like moderates because they lost an election, do you think their behavior would be sincere?

And those Democrat "moderates" have been pushing political correctness and identity politics for decades. The natural result of those divisive policies is the polarization of society and the riots we are having in democrat run cities today.

Moderate Democrat politicians have shown themselves to have been lying to Americans for decades. They have no objection to a plot to destroy democracy and rule of law in the United States. And even if there are some who don't like the plot, I doubt they will suddenly grow a spine in the future when the plotters deem the time is right for another putsch.

Even if any moderates come out and try to change the party, that will only ensure they loose the next primary elections where the parties choose their candidates. Very few people in the US vote in the primaries. It is only the extremist activists who vote in them. That is why the Democrat party has degenerated to where it is now. Those primary voters have no understanding of history or economics, they just want the government to solve all their problems. Doesn't that sound like communism? The Democrat politicians can't get into office except by pandering to those constituents.

Bernie Sanders is basically a communist. The only reason he didn't get the Democrat nomination to run for president is because the Democrat leadership connived to prevent it. The Democrat primary voters are further to the left than the leadership. That is the problem in the Democrat party - the candidates are chosen by extremists.
 
#31
Do I have to spell things out utterly for you? It has been Democrat local governments that have ordered the police not to stop these riots, and refused the offer to send in the national guard to deal with the problem.

David
I think its ironic that you are pining away for an armed response from a military force (i.e., National Guard is not part of law enforcement) in cities with Democratic mayors in light of your repeated calls for non-violence on a global scale.

If you want to scapegoat to validate your political position, feel free. I think a fair evaluation of the issue would lead to a more nuanced view and one where there is plenty of "blame" to spread around vs isolating a single political party. For example, and I'm sure you'll disagree, but how exactly has Trump helped with this issue? Its happening under his watch. Is he powerless? C'mon. Has he put a blue ribbon commission together to analyze and suggest reforms to address police violence against people of color? Has he even acknowledged the issue?

Sure, there are provocateurs from the extreme left at work here. Again, a ridiculously low percentage of the population no doubt. Likely there's a similarly small group of extreme right provocateurs stepping in to stoke the conflicts as well.

The violence has to be addressed but is it really just as easy as calling in the National Guard? Was it the last time we took this approach, this happened? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings

Again David, I can't understand this mindset of Republican 100% right/good and Democrat 100% wrong/evil. Its a ridiculous notion.
 
#32
I think its ironic that you are pining away for an armed response from a military force (i.e., National Guard is not part of law enforcement) in cities with Democratic mayors in light of your repeated calls for non-violence on a global scale.

If you want to scapegoat to validate your political position, feel free. I think a fair evaluation of the issue would lead to a more nuanced view and one where there is plenty of "blame" to spread around vs isolating a single political party. For example, and I'm sure you'll disagree, but how exactly has Trump helped with this issue? Its happening under his watch. Is he powerless? C'mon. Has he put a blue ribbon commission together to analyze and suggest reforms to address police violence against people of color? Has he even acknowledged the issue?

Sure, there are provocateurs from the extreme left at work here. Again, a ridiculously low percentage of the population no doubt. Likely there's a similarly small group of extreme right provocateurs stepping in to stoke the conflicts as well.

The violence has to be addressed but is it really just as easy as calling in the National Guard? Was it the last time we took this approach, this happened? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings

Again David, I can't understand this mindset of Republican 100% right/good and Democrat 100% wrong/evil. Its a ridiculous notion.
Again remember that I supported the Democrats until some way into Obama's second term. Even then, I suppose I would still have felt aligned to them if it were not for Hillary's declared polict of revitalising the Syrian war, and candidate Trumps stance against such wars.

BLM/Antifa would never have posed a problem if they had been treated identically to other groups wishing to demonstrate on the streets. As for the related policy of de-funding the police, I hope you will refuse to involve the police if you are mugged in the street or your house is burgled.

David
 
#33
As for the related policy of de-funding the police, I hope you will refuse to involve the police if you are mugged in the street or your house is burgled.
Nope, I'd call them and expect their services.

While I'm not a "defund the police" advocate, I am open to a discussion as to how best to structure law enforcement. Playing the "defund the police" card is disingenuous as many of the ideas under this broad, soundbite banner don't involve just firing the police force. Those that do I am diametrically opposed to. If redeploying some portion of the traditional police officer force in a community with specialists more suited to the community's needs (e.g., social workers, interventionalists, etc.) I'd consider it. What rational elected official wouldn't?
 
#36
Nope, I'd call them and expect their services.

While I'm not a "defund the police" advocate, I am open to a discussion as to how best to structure law enforcement. Playing the "defund the police" card is disingenuous as many of the ideas under this broad, soundbite banner don't involve just firing the police force. Those that do I am diametrically opposed to. If redeploying some portion of the traditional police officer force in a community with specialists more suited to the community's needs (e.g., social workers, interventionalists, etc.) I'd consider it. What rational elected official wouldn't?
How would you deal with the mass exodus from police departments given the current anti-police sentiment in democrat run cities?

 
#37
I don't think we are facing a technological collapse.
I think we are facing potentially a big step backwards in civilization: basic human rights, and the rule of law.
We have already lost what everyone used to agree was basic human right: freedom of speech. People are afraid of losing their jobs for expressing mainstream views. You can't even say men and women are biologically different.
And in the US democracy is in jeopardy from bureaucratic coups and vote fraud.
This video explains that while Trump was being impeached for investigating the Bidens' corruption in Ukraine as if it were an unethical political attack on Biden, everyone already knew of the Bidens' corruption because the Clintons had leaked the information to the New York Times in 2015 to keep Biden out of the Democratic primaries. And at the time of the impeachment the FBI also had the laptop with evidence of the Bidens' corruption that has been making news stories this week but it was withheld from the president's defense. The FBI was covering up for Biden to help the impeachment against Trump. Years into the Trump administration, the deep state is still trying to over turn the election of 2016.




Lou Dobbs:​
Lee Smith - his new book is "The Permanent Coup: How Enemies Foreign and Domestic Targeted the American President", also a new documentary out based on his national bestseller "The Plot Against the President", the documentary of the same name, we recommend both to you. Well it's all three two books and one documentary.​
The busy man himself, Lee Smith, good to have you with us. Let's see, let's start with the your reaction to, on, now uh, with the crickets we're hearing from the justice department about what the Biden family is now uh accused of and for which there is considerable uh evidence in the New York Post uh outstanding reporting.​
Lee Smith:​
Yeah, the the the Post uh the Post articles have been very important putting a lot of detail, uh putting a lot of detail, on what the Bidens have been up to. I think it's important however to go back uh to several years ago. We've known the general shape of the Biden's corruption in Ukraine basically since 2015. The New York times was reporting it then. The reason the press is burying it now is because the context has changed entirely. It appears that the Clintons leaked it to the New York Times to keep Joe Biden out of the 2016 primary race. They all know what's happening here they're buried it. But the bigger problem is not just the press. The fact is we're seeing a repetition of what Christopher Wray's FBI is up to. In December as Mayor Giuliani was talking about, not only did they get word of the hard drive, but that was also when they were putting the president through an impeachment process that had to do with the Biden's corruption in Ukraine. As many of us were saying at the time, the president was absolutely correct to want to know what was going on with the Bidens in Ukraine. And now we see that the FBI Christopher Wray's FBI buried that. This is part of a larger cover-up.​
Dobbs:​
Yeah, it is a cover-up that is extended, it is now clear that the current director of the FBI has much to answer for. Uh, it is not simply stonewalling, it is not simply slow rolling, this is a full-fledged cover-up by the upper officials of the FBI. Do you agree.​
Smith:​
Absolutely it's an active cover-up no it's an active cover-up it's not just a matter​
Dobbs:​
So why is it with a Republican attorney general, one in whom this this president and many republicans had great confidence in, that this is still ongoing? There is obviously, there are obviously, huge problems with political corruption atop the justice department and the FBI still.​
Smith:​
Absolutely and you know we see it also, you mentioned the uh the intelligence community assessment before, we see problems at the top of the CIA, the president has uh in some cases through bad advice, uh in many cases simply through subterfuge, but he is surrounded by people who are not only not helping him, as you said with Christopher Wray it's not only a matter of uh disinterest, it's a matter of actively working against the president and the american public. That's the key takeaway for me. They're not just targeting President Trump. And finally that's what this new book is about "The Permanent Coup", yes they've gone after the president but it's an attack on the foundations of the republic.
 
Last edited:
#38
Foreign interference in the US election.

https://www.breitbart.com/europe/20...o-censor-ny-post-hunter-biden-article-report/

Former British deputy prime minister of turned Vice President for Global Affairs and Communications at Facebook, Sir Nick Clegg, was allegedly involved in the tech giant’s decision to censor the New York Post article exposing details about the Biden family.

A report in The Telegraph claims that the anti-Trump British politician — who exited the former Conservative-Liberal Democrat government when the latter was trounced in the 2015 elections — was one of several members of the content moderation team who decided to reduce the distribution of the damaging report their site.
 
#39
This is a bit off topic but British influence operations in the US has a long history. They fed the US government fake intelligence reports and the public fake news stories in order to influence the US to enter WWII.
https://nypost.com/2019/10/02/the-fake-news-that-pushed-us-into-world-war-ii/

https://www.historynet.com/britains-propaganda-war-on-america.htm
Britain’s Propaganda War on America​

One of the reasons Americans were so set against entering WWII was because they were still angry about being duped by fake British reports of German atrocities in WWI.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_propaganda_during_World_War_I#Atrocity_propaganda

The cooperation of British with US in intelligence operations against Trump is also likely.

On the other hand British shared classified scientific information with the US that helped greatly in the development of radar and the atomic bomb. Both of these technologies gave the US an advantage over the Japanese in WWII.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tizard_Mission#Moving_the_secrets
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_contribution_to_the_Manhattan_Project
 
Last edited:
Top