Dynadot
Namecheap

Who is to Blame for the Troubled US Economy?

  • This poll is still running and the standings may change.
  • Both Parties

    234
    votes
    44.6%
  • Neither Party

    49
    votes
    9.3%
  • Democrats

    110
    votes
    21.0%
  • Republicans

    132
    votes
    25.1%

Impact
63,748
I think any objective look at the facts shows that the Democrats have near total control of the media. This has been referred to as a threat to democracy by various European politicians who most Americans would describe as very liberal and no friend of Trump.

I would be appalled if the Republicans or Trump controlled the media that way, and blocked out Democrats - even those I despise. Authoritarianism 101. But it seems many Dem supporters aren't bothered by such things.

Authoritarianism 102 is where they find a group of political rivals to demonize and call terrorists. Basic stuff for dictatorships. That's why among the few coherent sentences Biden can utter, he takes such pains to remind us all of the threat of "white supremacists."
Just another example of their virtual total dominance...
YouTube Bans Conservative Bryson Gray’s Hit Song “Let’s Go Brandon;” Takes Aim At Other Accounts That Use The F**k Joe Biden Euphemism
Screenshot_20211022-174735_Twitter.jpg
 

Cannuck

420 friendly
Impact
8,102
Impact
11,929
From Putin's speech last week. Americans used to give speeches like this... a long time ago:

The advocates of so-called ‘social progress’ believe they are introducing humanity to some kind of a new and better consciousness. Godspeed, hoist the flags as we say, go right ahead. The only thing that I want to say now is that their prescriptions are not new at all. It may come as a surprise to some people, but Russia has been there already. After the 1917 revolution, the Bolsheviks, relying on the dogmas of Marx and Engels, also said that they would change existing ways and customs and not just political and economic ones, but the very notion of human morality and the foundations of a healthy society. The destruction of age-old values, religion and relations between people, up to and including the total rejection of family (we had that, too), encouragement to inform on loved ones – all this was proclaimed progress and, by the way, was widely supported around the world back then and was quite fashionable, same as today. By the way, the Bolsheviks were absolutely intolerant of opinions other than theirs.

This, I believe, should call to mind some of what we are witnessing now. Looking at what is happening in a number of Western countries, we are amazed to see the domestic practices, which we, fortunately, have left, I hope, in the distant past. The fight for equality and against discrimination has turned into aggressive dogmatism bordering on absurdity, when the works of the great authors of the past – such as Shakespeare – are no longer taught at schools or universities, because their ideas are believed to be backward. The classics are declared backward and ignorant of the importance of gender or race. In Hollywood memos are distributed about proper storytelling and how many characters of what colour or gender should be in a movie. This is even worse than the agitprop department of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.

Countering acts of racism is a necessary and noble cause, but the new ‘cancel culture’ has turned it into ‘reverse discrimination’ that is, reverse racism. The obsessive emphasis on race is further dividing people, when the real fighters for civil rights dreamed precisely about erasing differences and refusing to divide people by skin colour. I specifically asked my colleagues to find the following quote from Martin Luther King: “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the colour of their skin but by their character.” This is the true value. However, things are turning out differently there. By the way, the absolute majority of Russian people do not think that the colour of a person’s skin or their gender is an important matter. Each of us is a human being. This is what matters.

In a number of Western countries, the debate over men’s and women’s rights has turned into a perfect phantasmagoria. Look, beware of going where the Bolsheviks once planned to go – not only communalising chickens, but also communalising women. One more step and you will be there.

Zealots of these new approaches even go so far as to want to abolish these concepts altogether. Anyone who dares mention that men and women actually exist, which is a biological fact, risk being ostracised. “Parent number one” and “parent number two,” “’birthing parent” instead of “mother,” and “human milk” replacing “breastmilk” because it might upset the people who are unsure about their own gender. I repeat, this is nothing new; in the 1920s, the so-called Soviet Kulturtraegers also invented some newspeak believing they were creating a new consciousness and changing values that way. And, as I have already said, they made such a mess it still makes one shudder at times.

Not to mention some truly monstrous things when children are taught from an early age that a boy can easily become a girl and vice versa. That is, the teachers actually impose on them a choice we all supposedly have. They do so while shutting the parents out of the process and forcing the child to make decisions that can upend their entire life. They do not even bother to consult with child psychologists – is a child at this age even capable of making a decision of this kind? Calling a spade a spade, this verges on a crime against humanity, and it is being done in the name and under the banner of progress.

Well, if someone likes this, let them do it. I have already mentioned that, in shaping our approaches, we will be guided by a healthy conservatism. That was a few years ago, when passions on the international arena were not yet running as high as they are now, although, of course, we can say that clouds were gathering even then. Now, when the world is going through a structural disruption, the importance of reasonable conservatism as the foundation for a political course has skyrocketed – precisely because of the multiplying risks and dangers, and the fragility of the reality around us.

This conservative approach is not about an ignorant traditionalism, a fear of change or a restraining game, much less about withdrawing into our own shell. It is primarily about reliance on a time-tested tradition, the preservation and growth of the population, a realistic assessment of oneself and others, a precise alignment of priorities, a correlation of necessity and possibility, a prudent formulation of goals, and a fundamental rejection of extremism as a method. And frankly, in the impending period of global reconstruction, which may take quite long, with its final design being uncertain, moderate conservatism is the most reasonable line of conduct, as far as I see it. It will inevitably change at some point, but so far, do no harm – the guiding principle in medicine – seems to be the most rational one. Noli nocere, as they say.
 

rh2000

Top Contributor
Impact
4,659
Last edited:
Impact
63,748
What do you guys think?
‘SOVREN’ New Social Media Platform That Cannot Be Censored By Big Tech Launches Today (VIDEO)
247474558_405383807970868_3371769275005199739_n.jpg

Unlike tech companies that have promoted free speech in the past before getting abruptly shut down by big tech collusion, Sovren utilizes “a totally different ecosphere”: blockchain technology. Any platform endeavoring to compete with Google, Facebook, Apple and Twitter or attempting to attain mainstream prominence cannot sustain if it is reliant on those monopolistic corporations, Swann warns.

“Parler said, ‘We are going to build our tech company utilizing the technology controlled by Amazon, controlled by GoDaddy, controlled by Google, controlled by Apple. We are going to build an app and we are going to put it on Apple’s app store and Google’s apps store. We are going to use their real estate to build our home.’ Then, all of a sudden, the landlord comes in and says, ‘Actually you can’t. We are taking it away from you,’” he said. “So many of these sites that exist, that are coming along as competitors, are making the mistake of building on server systems that can be censored.

“We said forget that – forget about the idea of trying to work with and work alongside Big Tech. The blockchain allows us to create a system that cannot be taken down. It’ cannot be censored. Our servers will be decentralized globally, so there is no centralized location for a server. Our DNS is unstoppable, using unstoppable domains rather than using the traditional domain system. We are building outside the current system. That’s what makes us so vastly different than anybody that’s out there right now.”
 
Impact
11,929
I have mentioned blockchain many times here as the ultimate solution. There are many groups trying to do this - the more, the better. Which one will take off is anyone's guess, but with an established company like Parler involved, that's a plus.

For it to be truly decentralized, though, it cannot be in the control of one company, especially not a company based in the anti-free-speech USA.

The blockchain nodes have to be well distributed, and the code has to be something that cannot be changed by one party put under pressure by a government, but only by wide consensus. But it is the future.

Things like Rumble and Substack are temporary fixes. They are centralized, so their policies or ownership may change, and it's easy for the state/big-tech/media conglomerate to squeeze them.

This is why we need to keep this thread going. Way too many Westerners cheering for their own destruction and oppression.

What do you guys think?
‘SOVREN’ New Social Media Platform That Cannot Be Censored By Big Tech Launches Today (VIDEO)
247474558_405383807970868_3371769275005199739_n.jpg

Unlike tech companies that have promoted free speech in the past before getting abruptly shut down by big tech collusion, Sovren utilizes “a totally different ecosphere”: blockchain technology. Any platform endeavoring to compete with Google, Facebook, Apple and Twitter or attempting to attain mainstream prominence cannot sustain if it is reliant on those monopolistic corporations, Swann warns.

“Parler said, ‘We are going to build our tech company utilizing the technology controlled by Amazon, controlled by GoDaddy, controlled by Google, controlled by Apple. We are going to build an app and we are going to put it on Apple’s app store and Google’s apps store. We are going to use their real estate to build our home.’ Then, all of a sudden, the landlord comes in and says, ‘Actually you can’t. We are taking it away from you,’” he said. “So many of these sites that exist, that are coming along as competitors, are making the mistake of building on server systems that can be censored.

“We said forget that – forget about the idea of trying to work with and work alongside Big Tech. The blockchain allows us to create a system that cannot be taken down. It’ cannot be censored. Our servers will be decentralized globally, so there is no centralized location for a server. Our DNS is unstoppable, using unstoppable domains rather than using the traditional domain system. We are building outside the current system. That’s what makes us so vastly different than anybody that’s out there right now.”
 
Last edited:

Cannuck

420 friendly
Impact
8,102

Trump is fighting a breach of copyright claim after using the British hit song Electric Avenue in his campaign video, insisting he is legally immune because he was then the US president. O_o

Here is the full decision:

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/21071194-grant-v-trump-order-on-dismissal-motion


Trump moved to dismiss the copyright claim, arguing the video was a "transformative, non-commercial work," used a minimal amount of the song, and didn't affect Grant's market for it.

https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/xmvjokbadpr/electric avenue mtd.pdf

Trump loses bid to escape, "Electric Avenue". U.S. District Judge John Koeltl said Trump and his campaign hadn't proven fair use of Grant's song under federal copyright law.

Trump's use of the song wasn't protected as satire or political commentary because it didn't "use Electric Avenue as a vehicle to deliver its satirical message, and it makes no effort to poke fun at the song or Grant," Koeltl said.

Instead, Koeltl said it's "best described as a wholesale copying of music to accompany a political campaign ad."

"Nothing about the song was integral to the video's political message, which is conveyed by the animation" and "unflattering excerpts" of a Biden speech, Koeltl said.

The fact that the song was unedited, played for over two-thirds of the video, and was "instantly recognizable" in it also weighed in Grant's favor.

Koeltl also said that Trump's use of the song could harm Grant's market for licensing it.

https://www.reuters.com/legal/transactional/trump-loses-bid-escape-electric-avenue-copyright-lawsuit-2021-09-28/

What an idiot...even a child would know better O_o
 
Top