I mean look at the garbage journalists during Floyd riot or contrast that with J6 coverage. Also, look how journalists have treated those who question mass migration
To be fair, they have reason to be arrogant. The media chooses our leaders, tells us what to believe, who to love, who to hate, and which elites are no longer useful and must be canceled. The media has basically run the western world in a cozy relationship with the governments for the last 80 years or so. What we've been living for the past decade at least is the burgeoning cusp of a new paradigm where social media means they are no longer needed and are losing grasp on narrative control.
That's one of the motivations for all the "anti-hate" censorship bills around the world. It's a last-ditch effort of the Fourth Estate complex to keep us locked in their house. It might work.
That's one of the motivations for all the "anti-hate" censorship bills around the world. It's a last-ditch effort of the Fourth Estate complex to keep us locked in their house. It might work.
Yes - this is why legacy media frequently disables comments on their website or social media these days. You can’t tell your cult victims to drink the Kool Aid when thousands of replies say its poison and you’re brainwashed.
She seems upset that he's pointing out that a foreigner stabbed a child, on account of it not being relevant.
So, blame the knife? Come on now.
She's merely upset because he's attacking doctrine, not the truth. If people were given the truth, unslanted, unaltered, unrestricted, they would reject doctrine in a minute.
What a vile cunt. Uses all the typical leftist tricks to attempt to shut him down. "You have a responsibility to do what propagated The Message. I'm not saying your can't tell the truth, I'm just saying don't tell the truth."
So am I to understand your view is that "Irish ethno-nationalists deserve no support because they're still progressives"?
Edit: Since you didn't bite... Assuming that's an accurate summary of your perspective, I'm having difficulty perceiving what your endgame is. How do you win when you'd rather take a loss than settle for the achievable partial victory?
Conceptually I understand why some people are all-or-nothing purists, but only when that rhetoric is backed by accelerationist action. If you will only accept total success, your only path to that lies on the other side of total collapse, because you'll never accept a world where you compromise with your opponents.
If you read enough history you see that real life rarely produces situations where a system totally and utterly collapses and is successfully replaced by something better. The few times it has happened almost always involve a dictator.
I suppose. In fact I wasn't intending to come off in any particular way. Those are my honest feelings. It looked as if you wanted to know why anyone would be against based nationalists standing up for their country - over a silly ideological purity test - so I wanted to give you a third perspective. I have no power so like your question it was purely hypothetical. Since you've read it, I'll delete the comment.
They don't accuse you of lying, they accuse you of heresy against their religion. They worship non-Whites.
I mean look at the garbage journalists during Floyd riot or contrast that with J6 coverage. Also, look how journalists have treated those who question mass migration
We need a documentary on how German media operated circa 1930.
See what parallels there are with modern Western media.
I really believe we see more Anti-White propaganda in America today than any anti-jewish propaganda in the 1920s in Germany
you mean the anti German propaganda from the communist jews?
And who do you think funds most of that propaganda today?
the Weimar republic?
To be fair, they have reason to be arrogant. The media chooses our leaders, tells us what to believe, who to love, who to hate, and which elites are no longer useful and must be canceled. The media has basically run the western world in a cozy relationship with the governments for the last 80 years or so. What we've been living for the past decade at least is the burgeoning cusp of a new paradigm where social media means they are no longer needed and are losing grasp on narrative control.
That's one of the motivations for all the "anti-hate" censorship bills around the world. It's a last-ditch effort of the Fourth Estate complex to keep us locked in their house. It might work.
Yes - this is why legacy media frequently disables comments on their website or social media these days. You can’t tell your cult victims to drink the Kool Aid when thousands of replies say its poison and you’re brainwashed.
She seems upset that he's pointing out that a foreigner stabbed a child, on account of it not being relevant.
So, blame the knife? Come on now.
She's merely upset because he's attacking doctrine, not the truth. If people were given the truth, unslanted, unaltered, unrestricted, they would reject doctrine in a minute.
And that scares the hell out of people like that.
What a vile cunt. Uses all the typical leftist tricks to attempt to shut him down. "You have a responsibility to do what propagated The Message. I'm not saying your can't tell the truth, I'm just saying don't tell the truth."
Yes, no shit. What's your point? Go tell the normies about this and they'll probably laugh in your face because "why would the media lie to us"
The anger is appropriate, why would it need to be dissuaded?
So am I to understand your view is that "Irish ethno-nationalists deserve no support because they're still progressives"?
Edit: Since you didn't bite... Assuming that's an accurate summary of your perspective, I'm having difficulty perceiving what your endgame is. How do you win when you'd rather take a loss than settle for the achievable partial victory?
Conceptually I understand why some people are all-or-nothing purists, but only when that rhetoric is backed by accelerationist action. If you will only accept total success, your only path to that lies on the other side of total collapse, because you'll never accept a world where you compromise with your opponents.
If you read enough history you see that real life rarely produces situations where a system totally and utterly collapses and is successfully replaced by something better. The few times it has happened almost always involve a dictator.
Yeah A, I know you think that way, and I believe I've told you before that I don't understand why you aren't shooting already.
I mean, I know why you aren't (because you know how it'd end). But the result is you don't come off as principled, you just come off as edgy.
I suppose. In fact I wasn't intending to come off in any particular way. Those are my honest feelings. It looked as if you wanted to know why anyone would be against based nationalists standing up for their country - over a silly ideological purity test - so I wanted to give you a third perspective. I have no power so like your question it was purely hypothetical. Since you've read it, I'll delete the comment.