Lion of the Blogosphere

It’s time for big tech to be regulated

Public utilities (like electricity, telephone, etc.) are required to serve anyone who will pay them, and customers are entitled to due process before their services are turned off. Con Ed (the utility that serves New York City) can’t just turn off your electricity and gas because they don’t like your speech, and even for nonpayment they have to give you fair notice and due process rights.

When businesses were discriminating against blacks, a Democratic constituency, Democrats passed the Civil Rights Act requiring businesses to serve everyone regardless of race.

It’s time to regulate big tech the way utilities are regulated, and the way every business is regulated with respect to discrimination based on “race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.”

A new law should require that big companies like Google/YouTube, Facebook/Instagram, and Twitter are not allowed to discriminate on the basis of political viewpoint or any other type of speech (other than pornography because everyone hates pornography), and that if there is any denial of service for any reason, the user is entitled to fair notice and a hearing just like when the electric utility turns off someone’s electricity. And this includes fair access to searching and discovery. No more shadowbans and other nefarious algorithmic suppression of speech based on political orientation.

And sure, throw in “race, color, religion, sex, or national origin” and throw in “sexual orientation” as well, to make the law look more fair and like something Democrats should support.

Republicans in Congress, stop being cucks to big business while they stomp all over conservatives.

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

August 6, 2018 at EDT pm

68 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. You can do that by modifying Section 230 of Communications Decency Act of 1996 by making it clear that one can either be a content neutral platform except for illegal acts/speech or be classified as a publisher with full liability including defamation/slander if you assume editorial control over the content of third parties activities.

    Anon123

    August 6, 2018 at EDT pm

    • this is the test. hugo black argued that incorporation follows from the privileges and immunities clause of the 14th amendment. and that this was the original intent. youtube and fb need to be “incorporated”.

      the difference between a govt granted monopoly and a de facto monopoly is irrelevant to everyone who isn’t a lawyer.

      luke ford

      August 6, 2018 at EDT pm

  2. Well, OK, but electricity, water, gas etc. are essentials of life, while Google/YouTube, Facebook/Instagram, and Twitter are not. I never use any them except YouTube occasionally to listen to old music. I use primarily DuckDuckGo for my search engine – never Google. I respect your point of view, but the best remedy is to ignore them. I lived most of my life without them, and I’m just fine now.

    Black Death

    August 6, 2018 at EDT pm

    • Communication is essential. That is why there are common carrier laws.

      map

      August 6, 2018 at EDT pm

    • “OK, but electricity, water, gas etc. are essentials of life”

      Most of human history was spent without them, so they are “essentials” in the same manner as the social media platforms are “essentials.” And for young people they are “essential;” almost all of them have some kind of social media account.

      “I use primarily DuckDuckGo for my search engine – never Google.”

      I’ve tried to use it and found that it sucks. Maybe Google is just inherently better, but I suspect that a lot of it is because of its natural monopoly. Lots of people use it, and this gives it data it can use to improve the rankings, something marginal search engines lack.

      Alexander Turok

      August 6, 2018 at EDT pm

      • Plus Google can afford a massive army of engineers who have been working for two decades to make Google the best, no one can compete against that.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        August 6, 2018 at EDT pm

      • http://gibiru.com/ is a decent alternative to google. Stripped down, simple search algorithm that provides good results without tracking you.

        destructure

        August 6, 2018 at EDT pm

      • It took me a few seconds to verify that it doesn’t work as well as Google. Plus it’s ugly. Zero chance of that ever going anywhere.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        August 6, 2018 at EDT pm

      • And it took me a few seconds to verify that a lot of the search results were exactly the same.

        destructure

        August 6, 2018 at EDT pm

    • How you lived your life is irrelevant. Younger people get their news and communicate entirely through the internet. Would you be fine with the left banning all conservatives magazines, newspapers, and television programming? Because that is what is happening. And censorship has seeped in to the DNS and Domain Name level as well now, so DuckDuckGo isn’t the savior you think it is.

      PerezHBD

      August 6, 2018 at EDT pm

  3. Donald Trump should start emulating TR and start trust busting these Silicon Valley behemoths.

    Oswald Spengler

    August 6, 2018 at EDT pm

    • Donald Trump should revoke the press passes of the liberal media. They can write stories about selfies and revenge porn while getting their information about Trump from Fox.

      map

      August 6, 2018 at EDT pm

    • “Donald Trump should start emulating TR and start trust busting these Silicon Valley behemoths.”

      Yeah, and Hell should freeze over and monkeys should fly out of my butt.

      You think that’s gonna happen? No way, Jose’.

      njguy73

      August 6, 2018 at EDT pm

      • By simply bringing it up he can cause their stock to tank.

        PerezHBD

        August 6, 2018 at EDT pm

      • He causes their stock to tank, he’ll be lucky to get out of the White House with his balls intact.

        njguy73

        August 7, 2018 at EDT am

      • When the stock tanks, people are gonna go on a buying spree and the price will go right back to normal, if not higher. Stock buying Libs end up benefitting ultimately

        Gm

        August 7, 2018 at EDT pm

  4. It already is a crime. A federal felony, in fact.

    18 U.S.C. § 241 – Conspiracy Against Rights

    Section 241 of Title 18 is the civil rights conspiracy statute. Section 241 makes it unlawful for two or more persons to agree together to injure, threaten, or intimidate a person in any state, territory or district in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him/her by the Constitution or the laws of the Unites States, (or because of his/her having exercised the same). Unlike most conspiracy statutes, Section 241 does not require that one of the conspirators commit an overt act prior to the conspiracy becoming a crime.

    Give that eunuch Sessions a testosterone injection and start the prosecutions.

    snorlaxwp

    August 6, 2018 at EDT pm

    • It would be difficult to bring charges under this statute for e.g. banning people from Twitter for something they wrote in a tweet, but you could when Twitter bans people for constitutionally-protected activities outside of Twitter.

      Where this really could apply is when companies like Google (Damore) or Disney (Barr, and throw in Gunn for balance) conspire to use their hiring and firing power to intimidate their workforce into not engaging in constitutionally-protected speech.

      Even these prosecutions would be immediately dismissed by a leftist or cuck judge, but just the sight of Susan Wojcicki and Bob Iger being handcuffed and perp-walked would be enough to end the practice in corporate America.

      snorlaxwp

      August 6, 2018 at EDT pm

  5. There are differences between a public utility like Con Ed and Facebook or Twitter. Public utilities are usually regulated monopolies. They are granted a monopoly to provide some service within an area in return for agreeing to be regulated. Sometimes they are city or state government owned companies.

    Facebook or Twitter have not been granted monopolies by the government. They have achieved near monopoly status by providing a service that people like.

    You have to pay Con Ed money every month for the electricity you use. You are the customer who is buying the service.

    Facebook and Twitter don’t charge you anything to publish your “speech”. You are not the customer. Your “speech” is the product Facebook and Twitter are selling to advertisers. If they don’t like your speech or they think advertisers don’t want to be associated with your “speech”, then they should be free to refuse to publish it.

    MikeCA

    August 6, 2018 at EDT pm

    • All of that doesn’t matter if Congress passes a law. Congress required every mom and pop store and restaurant to server customers regardless of race, color, etc. They can do the same with free speech rights. We are just talking about adding free speech to the list of “race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.”

      Notice how liberals like MikeCA are now against free speech.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      August 6, 2018 at EDT pm

      • The government does not require book publishers to publish any book that someone writes. They only publish books they think they can sell at a profit.

        If you cannot find a publisher, you are always free to self-publish at your own expense and try to distribute it yourself. We don’t consider that to be an infringement of free speech.

        Facebook and Twitter are paying money to store and publish your speech. If they don’t think they can make money by selling advertising next to your speech, why should the government require them to publish it?

        MikeCA

        August 6, 2018 at EDT pm

      • “The government does not require book publishers to publish any book that someone writes. They only publish books they think they can sell at a profit.”

        I bet they’d be sued if they were discriminating against black authors!

        We’re not talking about dead-tree publishing, it’s essentially free for YouTube or Twitter to let you publish what you want.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        August 6, 2018 at EDT pm

      • It is not as expensive as publishing a dead tree book, but it still costs money. Facebook and Twitter have huge server farms and IT teams to make sure your speech does not get lost in a hardware failure.

        You can stand out on the public side walk and tell everyone walking by that the world will end tomorrow and they should repent their sins. That is free speech. If you go into Macys and start preaching like that to customers, you will be asked to leave and probably forcibly removed if you refuse. A Macys store is private property. Macys is free to decide what behaviour they will tolerate in customers. You are still free to stand on the public side walk in front of Macys and express your free speech, although Macys will not like it and may try to get the police to remove you if you interfere with customers trying to get into Macys.

        Many cities have tried to outlaw begging for money on the street. Most of these laws are unconstitutional because begging for money is free speech as long as you are on public sidewalk. If you are on private property, you can be removed for trespassing. I know of cities that tried to enforce anti begging laws on public side walks. They are able to get away with it because beggars usually cannot afford lawyers.

        Facebook and Twitter are not public property. They are not required to publish everything your write for free.

        MikeCA

        August 6, 2018 at EDT pm

      • Yes it’s funny how people like MikeCA are OUTRAGED at the possibility of the government telling businesses that they can’t discriminate.

        fortaleza84

        August 6, 2018 at EDT pm

      • “Facebook and Twitter are not public property.”

        Actually, the New Jersey Supreme Court rejected this argument and held that shopping malls have to honor the First Amendment even though they are private property.

        Besides, like Lion says, it’s well within the power of Congress to require the social media giants not to engage in viewpoint discrimination. And in fact, if social media giants were silencing liberals, people like you would run screaming to the Courts demanding a ruling that the First Amendment applies.

        fortaleza84

        August 6, 2018 at EDT pm

      • There is no equivalent of a public sidewalk on the internets.

        My 2¢

        August 6, 2018 at EDT pm

      • MikeCa,

        You are completely wrong, more so given that Facebook and Google make use of the publicly funded and created internet.

        Look, if you can break apart AT&T; require telecom to follow common carrier laws; tax the use of wireless and telephones through the FCC; control the prices charged for essentials like gas, electricity, and water; and sue for violations of free speech under Marsh v. Alabama, where a communication company is required to abide by the First Amendment if it is large enough…then you can tax, regulate or break-apart Google and Facebook. There is no new territory here. We’ve been here before and all the tools are available already.

        Frankly, I would not care if the government revoked the charters of Google and Facebook to do business in the United States and then locked both companies out of the US internet space…like China does. But the rest? Perfectly legal and normal. It is just a matter of not treating these companies with special privileges.

        map

        August 6, 2018 at EDT pm

      • Good point. The wired and cellular internet comes under the regulatory purview of the FCC, so the FCC could promulgate regulations banning viewpoint discrimination on internet fora without even going through Congress. Thanks libs!

        This also wouldn’t be nearly as activist a move as previous liberal (e.g. “fairness doctrine”) or SoCon (e.g. nipplegate) uses of the FCC’s regulatory power.

        snorlaxwp

        August 6, 2018 at EDT pm

    • MikeCa,

      That is entirely incorrect. Utilities are regulated because they are natural monopolies: the only efficient provider is one provider. That it was they are regulated so they can’t simply gouge the public.

      map

      August 6, 2018 at EDT pm

    • Thanks for explaining, but I think you missed the point of the post.

      marck

      August 6, 2018 at EDT pm

    • “There are differences between a public utility like Con Ed and Facebook or Twitter. Public utilities are usually regulated monopolies. They are granted a monopoly to provide some service within an area in return for agreeing to be regulated. Sometimes they are city or state government owned companies.”

      This is nonsense, utilities would be monopolies whether “granted” a monopoly or not. That’s why it’s not controversial for the government to “grant” these monopolies, there is no competitor to object.

      “You are not the customer. Your “speech” is the product Facebook and Twitter are selling to advertisers.”

      And you don’t pay for basic television but do pay for cable or satellite. But what difference does it make? The companies are profiting off of you one way or another.

      Alexander Turok

      August 6, 2018 at EDT pm

      • Also, regulation of monopolies isn’t just for the benefit of the consumer. It’s also to keep companies from screwing over their suppliers.

        Alexander Turok

        August 6, 2018 at EDT pm

  6. Excellent idea, Lion. I know Steve Bannon was advocating something similar last year, and I’ve seen some opinion pieces about it, but I’m not aware of anyone trying to get actual legislation introduced.

    Heinrich Zemo

    August 6, 2018 at EDT pm

  7. Your comparison is flawed simply because political viewpoints that are deemed nefarious or “dangerous” by these unyielding technocrats get banned without notice and this isn’t the same as someone who doesn’t pay their bills where the services are turned off after repeated non-payment notices.

    JS

    August 6, 2018 at EDT pm

  8. I knew this post was coming.

    GondwanaMan

    August 6, 2018 at EDT pm

  9. AND TAX THE HELL OUT OF THEM!

    gothamette

    August 6, 2018 at EDT pm

    • Yep. If they’re not public utilitities that guarantee free speech then they’re private companies and we should tax their ass. Let’s hear the left try to explain why tech billionaires shouldn’t pay taxes.

      destructure

      August 6, 2018 at EDT pm

  10. I honestly don’t get baby boomer logic. You can’t possibly be blind to the (1) oligopoly created by regulations and (2) the capture of said regulations by the left wing, whose inertia is towards thought-control, ie totalitarianism.

    What will make this any different?

    The best response is competition, but let’s face it, the right-wing is inherently too uncreative and torpid to build consumer media products. The closest they come to, eg Breitbart or Rebel Media, are glorified bitchfests of the ruling elite. They do not possess aspirational value which is a key ingredient in a social media enterprise.

    A Dilettante

    August 6, 2018 at EDT pm

    • Absent regulation twitter and facebook will probably flame out inside the next ten years. The next big thing will have displaced them.

      If these idiots manage to impose a regulatory regime over web tech, we’ll probably be stuck with these crappy platforms for the rest of our lives. No one will ever be able to break into the business.

      bobbybobbob

      August 6, 2018 at EDT pm

      • I absolutely agree. Let these dodos build out the IT infrastructure to where the private market can simply free-load off of it (“Information-as-a-service” and other buzzwords which capture the idea). The answer is not to achieve hegemony but granularity, i.e. fracturing, of media. This plays best into the hands of the right-wing who can seamlessly independently build media around their cultural segments, eg rodeos and hunting (I’m being hyperbolic), which breeds a natural resistance to enforceable crime-think and therefore a more robust society. Arguably this is already happening as signified with the collapse of mass market media most recently corroborated with the NYT Jeong hire.

        A Dilettante

        August 6, 2018 at EDT pm

      • Oh and the election of Donald Trump, duh!

        A Dilettante

        August 6, 2018 at EDT pm

      • We should rather wait until internet flames out.

        My 2¢

        August 6, 2018 at EDT pm

      • Facebook has no real business model. They will eventually flame out or shrink 10x once investors realize the cash isn’t ever coming (different from amazon which is another fraud but at least has a more real looking business model). Facebook is already trying to get their greasy little hands on your bank data. Bank data is supposed to be sanceosanct yet these vermin believe themselves to be above the law.

        Paul Ryan's Sickly Old Lap Dog

        August 6, 2018 at EDT pm

      • “Facebook has no real business model.”

        They make huge money from advertising.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        August 6, 2018 at EDT pm

      • “This plays best into the hands of the right-wing who can seamlessly independently build media around their cultural segments, eg rodeos and hunting (I’m being hyperbolic), which breeds a natural resistance to enforceable crime-think and therefore a more robust society.”

        How’s that working so far? I’m on Gab, I support it’s mission, but I strongly doubt it will ever replace Twitter. Only 5% of people are willing to switch to a new site for political reasons, the others including the vast majority of Republican voters will just use the site everybody else is using. You see similar predictions of the death of these platforms whenever there’s outrage over one selling data or invading privacy or whatever. Someone makes a hashtag, (remember #DeleteFacebook?) a couple think pieces are written, predictions are made of the platform’s downfall, and then it’s all forgotten a month later.

        Alexander Turok

        August 6, 2018 at EDT pm

      • I think you underestimate the totality of the control these monopolies have and the ideological collusion that prevents any real competition. Gab for example, is a Twitter competitor. Apple and Google have both banned them from their stores, which makes it almost impossible for them to get their platform out. Coinbase banned them from using their financial services system. Their domain register threatened to pull their name from them.

        Competing against a tech monopoly is a daunting enough task as it is. But when Google, Facebook, Visa/Mastercard, Paypal, and others are colluding with said monopoly to keep you down it is virtually impossible.

        Regulation is the only answer.

        PerezHBD

        August 6, 2018 at EDT pm

      • Right, with Apple and Google controlling what apps go on iPhones and Androids… are conservatives going to come up with their own smartphone operating system also? Good luck competing against Android and iOS. Even Microsoft couldn’t do it (anyone using Windows phone?).

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        August 6, 2018 at EDT pm

      • It’s not exactly an argument to do nothing that the bad situation *might* resolve itself in some indefinite future time period. It might resolve itself in 10 years, or censorship might (will probably) get even more extreme.

        It’s already been ~50 years of de-facto censorship targeting whites specifically, I’d rather not have to live my entire life under totalitarian Newspeakian speech controls, and I don’t think it’s expecting a lot for Leftists to play by the same rules they’ve advocated.

        Panther of the Blogocube

        August 6, 2018 at EDT pm

      • Facebook’s net income was 15.9 billion in 2017 (Walmart, for comparison, made 9.8 billion). Facebook is sitting on 30 billion in cash and carries no debt. It trades at a multiple of 25.6, in the same ballpark as Home Depot
        (24.5).

        How does it have no business model? None of Facebook’s early investors are waiting on anything. Many wish they’d waited longer.

        ItsNotPetsDotComYouBoomer

        August 6, 2018 at EDT pm

      • “Competing against a tech monopoly is a daunting enough task as it is. But when Google, Facebook, Visa/Mastercard, Paypal, and others are colluding with said monopoly to keep you down it is virtually impossible.”

        Exactly. Breitbart was more influential than any two legacy networks combined in the 2016 election, and Sleeping Giants got 90% of their online advertising revenue cut out. WeSearchr, Hatreon, GoyFundMe, and other less fringey crowd-fundraising rightwing sites etc were all cut out of the financial system (PayPal, Vimeo, banks, credit cards, etc). MyPostingCareer, Red Ice, get their Amazon donation buttons and PayPal accounts removed. And of course Daily Stormer got kicked off all hosting and dns registration services in the Western World, and even banned by Tor (!).

      • Alexander, as I mentioned just above the comment you replied to, a social media product needs aspirational value. These current alt-right alternatives are just plain not sexy. They are counter-cultural but not in a good way. Make an app the country and farm babes will flock to and compete over – maybe some 2nd amendment theme – and then we are talking.

        A Dilettante

        August 7, 2018 at EDT am

      • Nothing attracts babes to an app like pictures of guns!

        Not.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        August 7, 2018 at EDT am

      • > “Competing against a tech monopoly is a daunting enough task as it is.”

        The replacements for Twitter and Facebook and others will not be companies. They will be open protocols on distributed systems. The tech pieces are almost all ready. Look into IPFS, for one example.

        If the FCC is put in charge of regulating who bans or allows what, then Facebook will simply be enshrined forever with its 100,000 moderators. Nobody will risk hosting parts of a distributed system and moderating.

        bobbybobbob

        August 7, 2018 at EDT pm

      • Look at #girlswhoshoot on IG.

        Where there is a male gaze, a woman will seek to capture it.

        A post shared by MACHINE GUN GIRLS™️ (@machinegungirls) on Aug 7, 2018 at 4:32pm PDT

        A Dilettante

        August 7, 2018 at EDT pm

  11. Nah.

    Libertarians have been saying for decades that private-for-public use entities should be non-discriminatory. Courts have been opening up to that approach. Conservatives have battled them on this, and now are paying the price.

    Turning them into far-left supervised monopolies, regulated oligopolies, or using anti-trust is just falling into far-left hands. We have enough problems with government entities being non-discriminatory already.

    Robert

    August 6, 2018 at EDT pm

    • Using anti trust to fragment them wouldn’t be so bad. At best it would be neutral.

      Paul Ryan's Sickly Old Lap Dog

      August 6, 2018 at EDT pm

  12. I remember listening to this discussion between Sargon of Akkad and Paul Joseph Watson.

    @4:59 PJW mentions he is working with people on the Trump team to draft an “internet bill of rights” to protect free speech and deal with things like shadow banning on twitter. Hopefully he wasn’t just blowing smoke.

    chris

    August 6, 2018 at EDT pm

  13. Twitter seems to be perfectly ok with anti-white tweets. Don’t give me that “advertiser friendly” garbage argument. “Muh private company”. Twitter, Facebook, etc are essentially de facto public squares. Government agencies, your local law enforcement, your representatives in government have social media accounts.

    Ronald McDonald

    August 6, 2018 at EDT pm

  14. OT:

    Speaking of big converged businesses … the NFL is now hiring male cheerleaders:
    http://www.cnn.com/2018/08/06/us/nfl-male-dancers-trnd/index.html

    Stan Adams

    August 6, 2018 at EDT pm

    • A lot of colleges have male cheerleaders and it usually works pretty well. They can do impressive jumps; lift the female cheerleaders, etc.

      Of course it won’t change the fact that the female cheerleaders are there to be eye candy which is why they always wear skimpy outfits.

      fortaleza84

      August 7, 2018 at EDT am

      • Yes, but did you see the pictures? I’ve never seen a college male cheerleader dressed like Jennifer Beals in Flashdance.

        Stan Adams

        August 7, 2018 at EDT pm

  15. “The Utility of White-Bashing – It’s a rhetoric that serves a purpose—which is why it’s not likely to disappear.” https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/08/the-utility-of-white-bashing/566846/

    IHTG

    August 6, 2018 at EDT pm

  16. Google, Youtube and Facebook should be regulated within the world we live in. The Constitution is not followed so we might as well regulate tech. Most of the things the Feds do is unconstitutional but that doesn’t stop them. The Constitution is really a meaningless document now.

    ttgy1

    August 6, 2018 at EDT pm

  17. How would you prevent them using shadow banning? The only way would be if the government employed spies that would get programming jobs inside these companies that have access to the algorithms.

    DataExplorer

    August 7, 2018 at EDT am

    • “The only way would be if the government employed spies”

      They’re called auditors, and the IRS uses them, and companies hire their own auditors too. No big deal. If we want to enforce it, we can.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      August 7, 2018 at EDT am

      • Actually, there’s an easier approach which is to use testers, i.e. have people run searches and compare results which are similar in all respects except for political viewpoint.

        In the world of civil rights, this has been done since the 1960s and is still done today. e.g. a black person will apply to rent an apartment and the next day a similarly-qualified white person will be sent to do the same thing.

        Of course there is still discrimination, but far less than there was in the 1960s.

        Anyway, the problem I see with regulating Google, Facebook, etc. in this way is that the internet is developing so rapidly that it’s difficult to predict the consequences of interfering with them. Right now, part of the reason the United States is so dominant economically is that all of these natural tech monopolies are located here. We should be very cautious about messing with that golden goose.

        Besides, although the silencing of conservatives sucks, the internet has made the situation far far better than it was 20 or 30 years ago. When I was in high school, I intuitively knew that the left-wing garbage spouted by my teachers was wrong but without the internet there was no practical way to find solid counter-arguments or like-minded people.

        fortaleza84

        August 7, 2018 at EDT am

  18. The most surreal and unexpected event of the 2010s was seeing Billy Corgan on the Alex Jones show.

    Seth Largo (@SethLargo)

    August 7, 2018 at EDT am

  19. “When businesses were discriminating against blacks, a Democratic constituency, Democrats passed the Civil Rights Act requiring businesses to serve everyone regardless of race.”

    Lion, the Right can’t use that Leftist narrative to their advantage precisely because it is a Leftist narrative.

    The narrative states that in the 60s, racist hate-monge white businesses were excluding blacks. The CRA was inclusive, and therefore, good. If the Right tries the CRA logic to maintain their free speech in “private” platforms, they will lose because it’s too easy to argue that the speech the Right is trying to protect is exclusive, and therefore bad hate speech.

    We live in a Leftist quasi-Marxist matrix/narrative. Everything the masses knows about the past and reality itself is a lie; boiled down to feel good jingles about how race is not real and MLK was the greatest man who ever lived.

    The truth of the Civil Rights era was that America was a white country and white people wanted to stay separate from blacks because of evolutionary/biologically-based HBD reasoning: not only are the two races irreconcilably different by temperment and culture, but whites are superior and therefore have nothing to gain and MUCH to lose. On the other hand, blacks have A LOT to gain by associating with whites so *of course* they are pro-integration, equality, inclusiveness and all that feel good nonsense.

    Try turning that reality into a feel good jingle/narrative for today’s masses.

    Somehow the narrative of the last 60 years needs to be blown-up, but I’ll be damned if I know how. And damned if I know how it could be done without bloodshed and a resurgence of nazism, as opposed to the benign race reality of pre 1960 America.

    fakeemail

    August 7, 2018 at EDT pm


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: