Day: July 23, 2018

[Note:  March 8, 2020— I’ve always been a big fan of Infowars, they are a very important source of news.  I’ve learned much from them over the years.  I don’t always completely agree with what they say though, such as in this example.  Also note that I’ve revamped the text of this article to fix a few grammar errors.]

Strangely, the usually libertarian-minded media outlet Infowars.com has launched a petition advocating for the government to take control of social media companies to enforce “ending the practice of shadow banning and algorithm based censorship,” claiming that social media companies are now “deFacto becoming the internet and are forming monopolies.”

However, I don’t think allowing the government to meddle in the content of private internet companies would be a good idea at all.  Once the government would be given such authority, they would use it to enforce quotas of political correctness such as by using the guidelines of corrupt organizations like the “Southern Poverty Law Center” which makes phony accusations of racism at the instructions of the political Establishment.

Such legislation would be the same as letting the government mandate the content that book publishers print in books in order to force of content of every book to be accommodating to everyone.  The content on the internet is an infinite resource, and calling a social media company a “monopoly” is essentially the same as calling a book a monopoly just because it is popular.

Creating an online social media company is not any sort of an impossible task at all, so there is no reason to treat already existing ones as if they are monopolies.

Such potential legislation reminds me of a lawsuit that was filed in California a few years ago where a private Christian dating website was sued to accommodate dating for homosexuals.  Is that the sort of legislation that Infowars is advocating for?

 

Then what about “Net Neutrality” rules?

However, I do agree with having the government enforce net neutrality rules, because the actual physical broadband infrastructure of the internet is a finite resource where equal access to actual internet service by everybody should be protected.

Some people argue that even net neutrality rules are invasive and create a “backdoor” for government corruption into companies, however the government has backdoor access anyway through the CEOs and upper management of such companies being members of Establishment secret societies.

If net neutrality rules didn’t exist, then broadband companies would throttle and block the traffic of websites that have information critical of the political Establishment by claiming that the information violates the company’s definition of “political correctness,” no matter where the content actually originates from on the internet.

Essentially, having the government enforce “net neutrality” rules is like ensuring that everyone can have their books printed and everyone can have access to those books, while at the same time it is crucial that the government is not allowed to mandate the actual content of the individual books that are printed.

[Note:  March 13, 2020— The text of this article has been updated.]

A new CNN documentary entitled “The Trump Show: TV’s New Reality” which premiered on Friday night attempts to suggest that women are on the verge of being forced into sexual slavery under Donald Trump’s administration.

In the documentary, the producer of the television series “The Handmaid’s Tale” Bruce Miller ridiculously claims that he “continuously sees parallels between his show and the U.S. under Trump.”

“The Handmaid’s Tale” is a dystopian story about the United States being overthrown by a patriarchal government that enslaves women and forces them them to bear the children of their male masters.

I think The Handmaid’s Tale is actually an allegory about Islam, and it is likely that the people involved with the show mention Trump as some sort of an “inside joke” because he’s actually someone who is “protecting” people from the potential of such a situation happening.  That seems to be the most logical explanation, I can’t imagine how any rational person could think that the show is an accurate representation of “Trump’s America” or what it could become!  I think only an Islamic society would be able to degrade into a dystopia of that sort.

I think it’s likely that the author Margaret Atwood and others involved with the show aren’t willing to admit the story’s connection to Islam because they don’t want to deal with the potential of being attacked in retaliation for being involved with the story.

There are also Establishment media articles that try to deny the connection between Islam and the show while trying to reinforce its connection to Christianity, such as this dishonest “Atlantic” article that makes the following statements:

“.. Saudi Arabia, for example, might be an authoritarian theocracy—state law requires citizens to be Muslim and prohibits non-Muslim public worship—but it is not totalitarian ..” (However, in truth Saudi Arabia is absolutely totalitarian, and it is one of the most flagrant abusers of human rights in the world.)

“Even the Islamic State [ISIS], which does engage in sex slavery, otherwise diverges from the model of Gilead’s Christian fundamentalists.  Gilead’s biblical judgments often seem laughably arbitrary and primitive (noncompliance is punished with eye-gouging, for example).  ISIS is similarly comfortable with performative brutality, but it set up fairly complex and elaborate judicial and legal structures, including detailed tax codes and counterfeit statutes.”  (This statement actually tries to create the perception that ISIS’s “fairly complex and elaborate judicial and legal structures” somehow negates its horrifying behavior.)