Amazon bans Scott Adams 'for life' ahead of new book launch
(thepostmillennial.com)
Comments (32)
sorted by:
Too many damn communists taking up all the censorship positions.
We need another McCarthy
McCarthy didn't go nearly far enough.
Pinochet didn’t go nearly far enough.
Patton didn't go nearly far enough.
He tried, and they killed him for it.
Amazon has been essentially stealing material from authors for a while now.
DO NOT GIVE GOOGLE OR AMAZON ANY OF YOUR CREATIVE WORK. THEY WILL STEAL IT.
Well thank you Amazon because I’ll definitely buy it now.
I would never buy an e-book except in open format. Unless you give me the crypto keys.
If that means not paying Scott for it, so be it. There's probably an option, though. He's a smart guy.
Yet somehow, I don't think that his book will wind up on libraries' "Read Banned Books" displays.
I wonder if Amazon is ever going to ban Matt Walsh and his book.
No? I wonder why? Hell, they shut off people's smart homes for less.
Because Scott Adams broke one of the foundational sins of the globalist world order: racism. Matt Walsh didn't. Weirdly, even though Walsh believes in differences among the sexes, which is almost always attributed to genetic differences, this doesn't pass over to believing in racial differences due to genetic variance, at least in normie territory for politics. However, Walsh is clearly protected, given who he works for.
There are two other subjects which form the trifecta of globalist sin, discussion of anything bad about jews, and anything contrary to the official history of WW2. White nationalism could be another topic, but if someone holds a view contrary to the globalists on the above 3 topics, they're usually an ethno nationalist at the minimum, anyway. Whatever your position on these subjects, every captured, corrupt, false choice, globalist subversive, and ineffectual normie, left or right, believes the mainstream position on these topics, and as such, they're increasingly becoming the best way to identify people you can trust and those you can't.
Of course it's never that simple, as there will always be outliers, but as the world slides into insanity, the dividing lines and identifiers will become increasingly apparent.
It also majorly comes down to the impact they could have. Matt Walsh isn't going to change many minds of anyone who wasn't already a Matt Walsh fan.
Adams has multi decade popularity and a comic strip that is basically a cornerstone of American culture. He will absolutely reach people outside his random little circles of dedicated followers just by accident. Which means he has considerable more possible impact, and needs to be corralled.
Eh, maybe. If Matt Walsh wasn't controlled opposition, and came out with something that promoted racial differences, or in the extreme case started speaking badly about jews, I absolutely think he'd be censored. Talk about those topics results in censorship of big and small folk.
Of course, everything is just a factor in these decisions. But often times these guys are left to do whatever they want, until they leave their little circles and start reaching people outside them.
Matt Walsh has endorsed Adam's position multiple times. It's because he works for DW and DW has back room deals with big tech
It's because Matt Walsh works for dw/Shapiro pushing the mainstream agenda.
Scott Adams coming up with the conclusion of white self defense on his own is not ok. Whites aren't supposed to speak unless they are shabbos.
He didn't break the foundational sin of racism. He just looked like he did out of context.
He actually wasn't saying that white people should stay away from black people; he was saying that if the poll (he felt wasn't true) was accurate, then any help from whites wasn't appreciated and white should stop helping.
Even hinting at the above 3 globalist foundational sins (at least with how it's enforced on us plebs) is an infraction worthy of unpersoning in the new world order.
To be clear: Who Matt Walsh works for is the Jews. There's really no other way to put it in this case.
This bizarre supposed Catholic is somehow advancing their cause. I don't trust him for a second.
Throw vaccines in there as well potentially.
Walsh has definitely explicitly called out misbehavior from other racial groups which is racism according to the left
Anti-trust breakup, when?
Anti-Trust regulation exists to protect monopolies, not break them up.
A free market would actually make centralization far too costly and difficult to maintain, thus the government steps in to keep it going. The purpose of "anti-trust" regulation is to break up companies just below the oligarchs; not to break up the oligarchs themselves.
The government funds Amazon and Alphabet to varying degrees, why would they damage it?
Press X to doubt but I somehow understand why you say this
You can watch it in real time. You doubt it because most people are taught that markets naturally centralize and monopolize. They don't.
The larger and more centralized a business becomes, the less responsive it is to both consumers and price shocks. The reason scalability works is off of efficiency. The reason McDonalds can make a $1 burger is because they manufacture well over a billion identical burgers every year. It is as simple as a burger can be physically made, it is identical to all other burgers of it's kind, it is made as cheap as possible, with the cheapest ingredients, and is effectively the lowest quality product available.
However, the is a point of diminishing returns. It is not possible to sell every human on Earth the same lowest possible quality product, at a single ultra cheap price, forever. Some price will change, some wants will change. No market can be stable. At that point adjusting this highly efficient and centralized system is impossible. To make a burger with sesame seeds would suddenly cost billions of dollars in developing new logistical systems, new purchasing orders for seed farms, new manufacturing orders for bread, new transportation routes, new regulations internally on how to manage it all, etc.
A small mom & pop store can simply add some seeds onto their bun and adapt to the fad. If people really like sesame seeds, the small business can directly talk to their customers, and can buy some new buns much faster.
For the ultra-large company, the solution is apparent. A billion dollars in production change is unaffordable (assuming they even notice that the customers wanted anything different in the first place). If they actually responded to their customers will, they would need to constantly try and completely change their logistical system on a monthly basis. They can't go from regular buns to sesame seed buns to regular buns in a month or two. They can't switch from red lettuce to green lettuce to romaine lettuce. They can't go from american cheese to provolone, to swiss. They literally couldn't afford to exist. Instead, they can either try to force the market to not want sesame seeds, or they can force the market not to buy seeds from small businesses.
Both require the government, which they happen to be donating huge amounts of money for. First, they put out a marketing campaign from a "concerned citizen group" about the dangers of sesame seeds. Their paid-for politicians can now create investigative panels, speak with "leading industry experts", and appoint bureaucrats to the Health & Safety agencies that regulate food. The media (obviously) will follow along. Once the politicians have generated enough political capital, they will then pass regulations to prevent businesses smaller than the ultra-business from selling sesame seed buns. This will come in the form of crippling regulations, safety checks, added legal liability, and license fees. Suddenly, making burgers with sesame seed buns isn't practical unless your company has over 100 million dollars in income; which only the ultra-corp has. Then, the ultra-corp asks for tax breaks and subsidies to help it and only it from the burden of the regulatory framework that it created.
This is also why you can find some of the largest corporations in the world asking for regulation in the industry. BP Oil wants the oil industry more regulated. JP Morgan Chase wants more banking regulations. Notice how Google has never once censored Elizabeth Warren for demanding anti-Trust regulation? It's because the anti-Trust regulation is good for them. It's a fucking scam.
Without these regulatory frameworks, the market would shift too rapidly for the largest companies to adapt. They would have no choice but to either collapse or decentralized. The reason they don't is because the government keeps them afloat. The government needs them to help control society and socially engineer it; and the business needs the government to keep them ultra-massive.
They've reversed the ban now
4 Life, brother!
Is Gilbert still going? Never really followed it.
The backend of amazon is a complete disaster. I wanted to sell my software on amazon and the process of listing it involved filling out an excel spreadsheet and emailing it to a person. Then when I started selling on other platforms and amazon sales dried up, they disabled purchasing because of low sales. They didn't delete the listing, just made it so you couldn't buy it because not enough people were buying it. So people would occasionally search on amazon, find it, be unable to buy it, then email me in confusion.
This was years ago, but not that many years ago. They've only automated and streamlined the high traffic bits of the business, the rest is slapped together with spit and glue.
Pilloried for providing sound advice.