I found this short video amusing:
What it’s like getting censored on YouTube:
https://youtu.be/RGxbaxviRVw
We have discussed much of this in the past but many of these issues bear repeating and some are new. Simply stated, we need to deprive the vampires of their blood (i.e. our patronage and money).
For the banks and the credit card companies, avoid getting into debt and, if in debt, get out of it as soon as possible and stay out of it. Learn to live as frugally as possible. Buy only what you need until you can afford to also buy what you want. Also, if you can, use smaller local banks and especially credit unions as opposed to the big banks. With credit cards, avoid using them as loan companies. Make them work for you rather than you working for them. Use them to pay you with cash back cards or, better yet, pay cash and avoid having the business you’re buying from have to pay the credit card company, especially with small local businesses, particularly the ma and pa types.
For Wall Street with investment vehicles that parasitize your financial assets with ongoing annual expenses, seek to reduce those expenses as much as possible, if not eliminate them. For example, most mutual funds have higher expenses than ETFs and ETFs have higher expenses than individual stocks. Education is critical here as NO ONE will take care of your money as well as you will, if you are properly educated. This takes some time but it is time well spent. I speak from much personal experience here.
For mainstream media, turn off the boob tube. Listen to inspirational radio funded by private donations rather than radio funded by endless advertisements or subscriptions or government grants. If you want to read a particular magazine or newspaper that is contrary to your values, read it at a library rather than buying a subscription.
For social media, meet up with your friends in person instead or give them a call or, heaven forbid, write them. And also look into emerging platforms that don’t practice the censorship of the big guns. Perhaps some of you can offer a few suggestions here. I’m not up on the latest as I’ve long eschewed any form of social media, much to my happiness and contentment as compared to those whose participate.
For professional sports that are dictating your cultural and political practices and preferences, turn them off and let the government subsidized stadiums owned by the billionaires fall into disuse. Get up off your armchair and participate in physical activities yourself rather than living vicariously through others playing rather silly games that ultimately amount to nothing in the long run. And get out in nature (and the fresh air and sunshine) if you can, the arena of ultimate sport. Just getting down on your tummy and looking at the grass in your backyard and seeing the amazing miniature jungle that resides there is fascinating. Nature is incredibly soothing and restorative.
For the medical system and Big Pharma, take responsibility for your own health. Nutrition, exercise, psychological health practices like meditation, and spiritual practices like prayer will all decrease your reliance upon the system. This is an area in particular that requires a lot of self education but it pays off. I recently developed an earache and solved it in two days with self application of 3% of hydrogen peroxide. I remember such episodes almost always entailed a doctor’s visit when I was younger and drank a lot of cow’s milk, swam in a public pool on a swim team, and had a father who was a smoker, all of which contributed to the problem. Ditto with using vitamin D and an elderberry extract to avoid the flu (and the flu vaccine), a prophylactic strategy I’ve successfully used for many, many years.
It goes without saying here to seek to grow as much of your own food as possible. The quality and freshness of the food, the beneficial bacteria released by working the soil, the physical outdoor exercise, etc. will all make you healthier, wealthier, and happier. And you can give away some of what you have or exchange with friends and neighbors and enjoy the benefits of giving and a quality of social interaction that social media can never provide.
For search engines, avoid Google and use one like Duck Duck Go. The differences between the two on “sensitive” subjects is often profound and clearly demonstrates the extent of censorship that is occurring.
Instead of YouTube, look for some of the emerging private video platforms like Brighteon.
I’m sure the crypto fans will say use Bitcoin rather than FRNs where you can and I see the strength of that argument.
Insurances present a dilemma as our modern existence often requires them by law or in order to safeguard what you’ve worked so hard far. But always shop around for the best deals and do that regularly, read the fine print to know what you are and are not buying and covered for, and never give up when denied coverage if your cause is righteous.
There are other areas where we can deprive them of their blood but these are the ones that come to mind at the moment.
The promising thing is, I look around me and see the villagers are waking up. The torches are being lit and the pitch forks are coming out. And one day, the boldest will go forth with their wooden stakes and put fear into the cold hearts of the vampires rather than vice versa.
From one old-timer to another: very well-said!!! Er…written…
Nice review, beautifully said.
You speak like a true leader ao
Thank you for the inspiration.
Agreed. People feel the free flow of information is always liberating. The Rohingas of Burma were incarcerated, killed, driven out of their country, largely due to Facebook, a few years ago. Facebook had a “who are we to be moral arbiters,” position at the time and let the hate and disinformation rip.
Social media and search engines, like Google, Twitter etc…are constantly feeding back to the reader, a steady stream of revenue generating ads and ‘news and views’ based on their prejudices, beliefs, (ignorant, idiotic, poorly sourced or otherwise). They seem to be cleaning things up a bit now, by deleting accounts of hateful nutjobs. The problem is they can cast their nets too wide and there’s a lot of collateral catch that should be left alone.
I LOVE that Twitter deletes Trump’s posts if they step over the line. If he tries to use social media to incite violence, post election, social media will be ready and delete more accounts and all of his stupid rants.
Free speech is taken advantage of by demagogues, who lie, cheat and bully their way into a position of power and then curtail ALL speech that doesn’t fit within their own agendas, once that power is fully cemented.
Freedom is a fraught concept, full of paradox and ambiguity.
How are the parameters of “a hateful nut job” defined?
Who gets to define them?
As for me, I am in favor of free speech, whether it is coming from a saint or from “a hateful nut job”. I may disagree with communists, fascists, etc. but I do not disagree with their right to express themselves. Where would you draw the line in preventing that free speech? Therein lies the rub.
At one time (as I remember) you could have a rousing argument with neither party particularly attached to their position, as an intellectual bit of thought provoking entertainment. Being a devils advocate was fun then, as you could submit to a resounding defeat, or make light of someone’s earnestness. Seems to be a long gone memory. My current read “how to have impossible conversations” Boghossian & Lindsay speaks to a lost social art.
Hateful nutjobs are people who accuse others of specific misdeeds without clear evidence and whose accusations can rouse those who don’t know any better to acts of violence.
I am not talking about people who call somebody a socialist when they aren’t, or small potatoes like that. I mean more like politicians and opinion shapers who have a witch hunt mentality and smear someone with being a pedophile, or aligned with a pedophile ring, without evidence. It’s particularly agregious, if it’s part of a platform against an opposing candidate or even an entire party.
It’s not about merely lying, its about inciting violence. That’s what happened to the Rohinga’s. It may have been the first attempted genocide that can be largely attributed to Facebook.
Allowing atrocity propaganda that is often the lead up to civil unrest and or genocide is part of ‘free speech.’
None of the agencies in DC are going to help. Think who lives in DC - the heads of the various agencies - FBI, NSA, CIA, Pentagon, ECT. This is how they voted in 2016: Clinton 93%, Trump 4%. It’s an echo chamber.
Agitating prop…you said “Hateful nutjobs are people who accuse others of specific misdeeds without clear evidence and whose accusations can rouse those who don’t know any better to acts of violence.”
So that would be the people who falsely accused Trump of Russian collusion with made up evidence and created hatred against the man by 3 years of Violent Media Rhetoric. The state sponsored lies and media lies gave rise to the violent subgroups within Antifa and BLM. Thanks for clearing this up, and showing us who the Hateful Nutjobs have proven by factual evidence to be.
“So that would be the people who falsely accused Trump of Russian collusion with made up evidence and created hatred against the man by 3 years of Violent Media Rhetoric. The state sponsored lies and media lies gave rise to the violent subgroups within Antifa and BLM. Thanks for clearing this up, and showing us who the Hateful Nutjobs have proven by factual evidence to be.”
Olive Oil Guy
I will repeat what I said. Those who accuse others of atrocities, without clear evidence are Hateful Nutjobs. Nothing you mention above rises to the level of an atrocity. It may be dishonest, stupid, obsessive and or wrong, but it isn’t accusing somebody of an atrocity.
This is a non partisan issue. It involves the limits of free speech and where lines should be drawn.
How do you define an atrocity? Would an atrocity be the organizer of a recent conservative demonstration in San Francisco, an African American named Philip Anderson, having his two front teeth knocked out by a sucker punching Antifa assailant? Or would he have to break Anderson’s jaw? Or break his neck (as a powerful, unanticipated punch can do)? Or put him into a coma? Or kill him? All this in response to no violent threat or action on Anderson’s part, to my knowledge. Would this assailant qualify as a hateful nutjob?
Ao-
How do you define an atrocity? Would an atrocity be the organizer of a recent conservative demonstration in San Francisco, an African American named Philip Anderson, having his two front teeth knocked out by a sucker punching Antifa assailant?If an Antifa member does something, by definition it can't possibly be an atrocity, because their very name says that they are ANTI-fascist, which means any act that any Antifa member takes against a Nazi is a justified act of community self-defense. The target was a Nazi! What is a Nazi? Well, Nazis are, of course, identified by Antifa members. They reserve the right to identify Nazis. Someone has to - so many Nazis go unidentified in this world, and they come in so many shapes and sizes - and Antifa are our community's Nazi identification team. "Look, there's a Nazi!" (bang!). "Yay, the Nazi is dead!" No need for judge, jury, presentation of evidence, a legal defense, cross-examination of witnesses, or any of that time-consuming legal process. An Antifa member's assessment in real time that someone is a Nazi is all the due process that Nazis deserve. The community must be defended. So what might be termed a "sneaky sucker punch" executed by a normal person against another normal person, is actually an act of community self-defense when executed by an Antifa member on a Nazi. You should probably watch what you say. After all, criticism of Antifa is all an Antifa member needs to identify you as a Nazi. By definition - only a Nazi would criticize Antifa. And you know what happens next.
It all seems a little on the impossible side doesn’t it?
Honestly, I don’t think there are any clean, elegant, and entirely fair ways to approach this issue. Like Bilbo, we will just have to muddle through and do the best we can. We are humans, that is our lot. If anything, it is this admission of fallibility that will lead us through successfully if anything can. But it will require that a lot of hubris be abandoned.
There is nothing more dangerous than a group of young humans filled to the brim with righteous indignation. At this moment we have a lot of young people who seem to believe that the 1st Amendment is a cumbersome throwaway. That they are entitled to disable it if someone finds something hurtful or it causes unease. Historical understanding of the 1st Amendment is treated as toxic waste and they revel in trampling it… AND they believe they are entirely justified in doing so. AND that they have the wisdom to do so.
Where have we seen this mindset before? (I’m looking at you Baby Boomers… I kid, I kid!) 
In the end freedom of speech is the safety valve of society. The disinfectant that allows us to weed out dangers to our society without picking up weapons and solving our disagreements the old fashioned way. Without it we are powerless to identify and eliminate dangers. We can’t argue and muddle our way into the correct decision. We can’t find the middle ground that does the least damage while preserving our principles.
And if we end up causing some unease in the mind of a group of petulant children who wish to abandon the field and retreat so some safe place where rainbows and unicorns abound? Too bad. Time to grow up and sharpen your intellect. Use those wonderful years in college to explore new ideas and classic ways of debate. Children and monsters try to prevent those who disagree from having their say.
Will
@agitating prop Social media and search engines, like Google, Twitter etc..are constantly feeding back to the reader, a steady stream of revenue generating ads and 'news and views' based on their prejudices, beliefs, (ignorant, idiotic, poorly sourced or otherwise). They seem to be cleaning things up a bit now, by deleting accounts of hateful nutjobs. The problem is they can cast their nets too wide and there's a lot of collateral catch that should be left alone. I LOVE that Twitter deletes Trump's posts if they step over the line. If he tries to use social media to incite violence, post election, social media will be ready and delete more accounts and all of his stupid rants. Free speech is taken advantage of by demagogues, who lie, cheat and bully their way into a position of power and then curtail ALL speech that doesn't fit within their own agendas, once that power is fully cemented. Freedom is a fraught concept, full of paradox and ambiguity.The people telling you all that are the people doing it. It's pure projection as always. THEY are the demagogues, bullies, hateful nutjobs (who'll pretent to believe whatever falsehoods fit the enslaving narrative they're selling you), censors, and violence-inciting amoral political activists (your cities are on fire because of them)... but you somehow still haven't noticed. To you "the problem" is that now they have "cast their net too wide". You're SO naive, so in right brain feelz, that you'd be praising the CCP if you lived in China. You're believing the false narrative of some very dangerous people that have to and will end up behind bars (behind Barr's hopefully, hahaha). Just the facts, FYI. NOW, here's the UNDENIABLE evidence that you may (or may not) be completely brainwashed, and choosing to be: Do you disagree that they are covering up Biden's senility/dementia?: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0dOuEra_g8 And his repeated child-touching that would instantly end the career of ANY politician on the other side of the MSM's narrative?: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUbbmoWJudc Say yes or no. So that we can understand and fully appreciate where your mind is at, who is "agitating" your mind with "props" that override your own eyes and ears.
The subject line says it all. If someone is promoting the idea that either the democrat elite or republican “elite” are engaged in pedophile rings…that’s atrocity propaganda…and it can…and has…promoted violence on a small scale already.
Should false or unsubstantiated claims of pedophile torture, cannibalism etc… be censored? Yes, because they obviously incite violence. As Penguin Will said, there are no clear cut answers here.
In an attempt to clean up misinformation, social media has cast too wide a net and there is collateral catch. They may be catering to big pharma, or they may just have a tough time keeping on top of it all.
If Chris is being deplatformed from Youtube, it may have to do with the Mother Jones article, in which case he should consider a defamation suit against Mother Jones.
The film Plandemic was immediately deplatformed by Youtube and seeing as the misinformation contained within was interfering with the message that we have to mask up, that was a plus.
Because the film developed work arounds, online it has caused no end of cultural stress during an emergency situation. Now, does it mean that big Pharma is interfering with Google, Youtube? In this case, likely not.
And tbp, I would appreciate it if you ceased insulting me with subject lines, suggesting someone is controlling my mind. Fair enough?
“The film Plandemic was immediately deplatformed by Youtube and seeing as the misinformation contained within was interfering with the message that we have to mask up, that was a plus.”
That’s the problem. Why do they get to decide what “message” I may see and evaluate?
How can I do my own research if I am prevented from evaluating the arguments, pro and con, on any issue if arguments contrary to certain interests are suppressed out of the gate? I no longer trust those who clamor for “curated information”. It is dystopian.
The film Plandemic was immediately deplatformed by Youtube and seeing as the misinformation contained within was interfering with the message that we have to mask up, that was a plus.Ok. So scientific debate is now under the control of Youtube's "fact checkers." I'm not comfortable with that. Guess what: someone "interfering with a message" is actually encouraged activity in a society that is allegedly the product of The Enlightenment. Here's an article - using the wayback machine, as it was recently deleted by the magazine which previously published it - which lays out just how (way back in 2016) the dental world was being confronted with the new reality that said: "masks don't work." It would seem as though we have a philosophical struggle between free discussion, evidence, and debate/The Enlightenment on one side, and Papal Infallibility/the Church on the other. The more things change, the more they stay the same.
https://web.archive.org/web/20200605090916/https://www.oralhealthgroup.com/features/face-masks-dont-work-revealing-review/ The primary reason for mandating the wearing of face masks is to protect dental personnel from airborne pathogens. This review has established that face masks are incapable of providing such a level of protection. Unless the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, national and provincial dental associations and regulatory agencies publically admit this fact, they will be guilty of perpetuating a myth which will be a disservice to the dental profession and its patients. It would be beneficial if, as a consequence of the review, all present infection control recommendations were subjected to the same rigorous testing as any new clinical intervention. Professional associations and governing bodies must ensure the clinical efficacy of quality improvement procedures prior to them being mandated. It is heartening to know that such a trend is gaining a momentum which might reveal the inadequacies of other long held dental infection control assumptions. Surely, the hallmark of a mature profession is one which permits new evidence to trump established beliefs. In 1910, Dr. C. Chapin, a public health pioneer, summarized this idea by stating, “We should not be ashamed to change our methods; rather, we should be ashamed not to do so.” 36Until this occurs, as this review has revealed, dentists have nothing to fear by unmasking.One more interesting tidbit from Alex Berenson's twitter feed:
https://twitter.com/AlexBerenson/status/1317875526997102594
A lead investigator on the Danish mask study - the ONLY (as far as I know) randomized trial to see if masks protect from #COVID - was asked when it would be published. His answer: “as soon as a journal is brave enough.” If you think that means the study shows masks work...
While I'm still dutifully wearing my mask indoors, I must admit to being very interested to seeing how this study turns out. If the outcome of the trial is negative - the longer they suppress it, the larger the backlash will be.