Moderated on Breitbart, Yet!

Et tu, Breitbart?

Moderated on Breitbart, Yet!

by Seneca III

This morning, 02/03/18, Breitbart London led with a report entitled ‘Bury Police Announce Probe Into Grooming Gangs Preying on Children in Parks’.

At the time I had just started an article on a closely related theme, the opening paragraphs of which appeared to be rather appropriate for a comment appended to this report; here is a pasted screen copy of the comment’s negative progress. It remains unchanged five hours later as I submit this article:

DizzyBirdy • an hour ago

I wish people would stop calling them grooming gangs. They are paedophile gangs. Child molester gangs.

The police adopted the term ‘Grooming gangs’ because it sounds less disgusting to people. They use ‘paedophile gangs’ when reporting about white child molesters so they should use it with mudslime child molesters as well.

•Reply •Share

I did reply, and this is what happened:

Brother Antony → DizzyBirdy • a few seconds ago

Hold on, this is waiting to be approved by Breitbart News Network.

(In the article, click on ‘Best’ in ‘Sort by Best ↓’ to go to the exact place of insertion.)

…So, there it ended at Breitbart. Here below I offer the offending comment, and I leave it open to GoV readers to decide if or how it breaks any Breitbart (Disqus?) or any other rules, for I cannot:

First, we need to appreciate that there is now a fundamental problem facing these pathogenic Marxist-Socialist-Islamofascists. Because they have been spreading their plague so virulently over the last couple of decades it is running out of corpses, and those of us who have survived its depredations have in the process developed a natural immunity — it is called ‘awareness’.

However, before this infection can be eradicated we need to stand back, understand what its primary vectors are and then, in response, start raising our girls and boys to be real women and men; girls who grow into women who understand that they are the granite foundation stone of the family unit, its nurturative, communicative and associative backbone and its home defense; then boys who grow into men and understand that integrity is manliness, that offence is the best form of defense, that they are not natural born rapists, that racism is a survival trait, that it is good to be a white heterosexual achiever, and both genders need to understand that none of those attributes will be developed in schools polluted with teachers who stack the odds against them by feeding them a diet of puerile, ‘progressive’ emotional pabulum in order to distort their perceptions and handicap their intellectual development.

It is axiomatic that racial survival is the vibrant offspring of combined masculine and feminine strengths, for in times of adversity ruthless, unbending fortitude is a defining characteristic and both genders need to be imbued with an understanding that struggle is their lot in life, that manliness and femininity are courage and sacrifice, not wasted courage nor pointless sacrifice but standing firm and facing down, by whatever means are necessary, the latest incarnation of oppression that is upon them.

So, guys, man up, and you women need to abjure your recent retrogressive indoctrination and sharpen up your act post haste by taking your rightful, equal but different place in the order of things whilst ignoring the Feminazi, pink pussy hat and perambulating vagina brigade for the evolutionary lost cause that they are and, most of all, ignoring the asinine twattering of narcissistic ‘celebrities’; those posturing, cretinous moral dwarves are naught but a purse string suture in the rectum of our human progress.

Just be yourselves, each of you, it has worked so well since time immemorial.

— Seneca III, on a wintry afternoon of both body and soul this second day of March 2018.

For links to previous essays by Seneca III, see the Seneca III Archives.

24 thoughts on “Moderated on Breitbart, Yet!

  1. To Seneca III, the reason you were sensored at is because a certain people have taken over the site, they who can not be
    named without accusing one of anti (fill in the blank). The main editor Joel Pollak is a socialist fill in the blank whose parents were socialist fill in the blank high mucky mucks in the South African govt, who emigrated to the US after they’d done enough damage. Now the simple truth is Gates of Vienna censors people who dare mention what the fill in the blanks are doing here.

    • [Note from the Baron to readers: I think she means “Jews” when she says “fill in the blank”, but is apparently reluctant to use the word or (((triple parentheses))).]

      • And we both know from sad experience that when a thread gets hijacked by the JQ it goes downhill rapidly. Gets ugly and vituperative.

        Ain’t going there.

        • Well, whoever they are, they took over Fox, in part, and I am not surprised that Breitbart is on the slippery slope. A lot of the stuff they publish anymore is “news for parrots.”

    • I’ve had things on conservative sites blocked with the same sentence. And all it was was talking about the Broward Sheriff’s and a situation that showed it hasn’t changed much since the ’80s. Tried on two different sites, and it was refused. I don’t go on Bretbart any more because it’s changed… but now I’ve deleted two more sites that censored me, with no bad word or names of anyone.. it was just a situation described.

  2. I’d guess that the words which describe female genitalia will be the ones that puts the blocks on.

  3. I was banned from Breitbart for pointing out that the Jewish community in the West are big fans of Muslim immigration but not big fans of free speech. A Jewish gentleman scolded me for saying this, then my comments went into moderation, then I was told I’d been banned.

  4. After Steve Bannon left, Breitbart started censoring my comments too. Apparently the powers that be only want an occasional Muslim article as click bait, but no longet allow their readers to express their opinions on the Muzzies (another word that will get you censored at Breitbart).

  5. For what it’s worth, I too have been banned by Breitbart for mentioning those who may not be mentioned.

  6. There was no good reason to censor those letters, but there was no good reason to publish them either, since their ideas do not seem to be embedded in any coherent discourse that renders them intelligible. I think that human communication in general should privilege those messages that contribute to reasoned discussion, instead of merely stringing together unconnected assertions that are not backed up by any reasoning, evidence or reference to a source, and thus become comprehensible only to those already initiated in the writer’s arcane circle. For example, to an outside observer, the expression “these pathogenic Marxist-Socialist-Islamofascists” is unclear, to say the least.

    • Perhaps I should have referred to it as the Marxist-Socialist-Islamofascist Alliance, for that is what it is…or even the Marxist-Islamofascist-Socialist Alliance and thus generating a handy acronym.

      • It sounds as if your comment went into automatic moderation because you used two words referring to the female anatomy. Publishers using disqus can change the settings to automatically put comments with words like this into automatic pending. My observation of BB is that you can more or less say what you like as long as you don’t troll, threaten serious violence or say something about an individual which might cause a legal situation.

  7. I too have been censored by the disqus forum in Breitbart… Once was when I used the phrase “to beat the algorithms”.. I immediately reposted the same information but used kind of phonetics and split words up. For instance algorithm now became Al Gore rhythm…It has gotten a lot worse since Steve Bannon left….I have to get inventive with words that I post. Each time I get one that isn’t ‘being moderated” I feel it’s half a blow in the fight for free speech.. Only half a blow because it’s not really free speech if it has to become a code.

  8. On rereading your comments, Seneca III, I notice what seem to be racist remarks about a so-called white race, and what might be slurs against Jews.
    I am not the least bit queasy about racism. My father was a hard-core racist and such comments do not faze me.
    What bothers me is when people make statements that have no support in the real world, by which I mean there is no scholarly literature supporting that standpoint. The statement “racism is a survival trait” is especially problematical, since you must define whether the survival in question is that of an individual, a species, etc. Many biological mechanisms have become useless in civilized life, and in my opinion racism is one of them (assuming that it has a biological component). So just because it may have served our cave-dwelling ancestors doesn’t mean that it is useful today.
    Although I have searched for evidence that the Jews control world finance and operate a worldwide system of control, I haven’t been able to find any. Therefore I think people should refrain from making statements that imply that the Jews exert grossly disproportionate influence over world affairs.
    The multiculturalism that many people criticize has nothing to do with Marxism. Instead it reflects the influence of cultural anthropology, a discipline founded by Franz Boas. At least you should identify properly the intellectual pedigree of the school of thought that you are attacking.
    Moreover, as a committed foe of Islamic supremacy, I do not want the counterjihadist struggle – which is based on a clear-eyed and empirically supported view of contemporary Islam — to be contaminated by unscientific right-wing claptrap like racism, free-market ideology and other currents of folk culture, relics of our pre-scientific past only slightly less discredited than astrology.
    Some years ago I read in Gates of Vienna that social security is built on debt. I have studied the history of social security systems, and I have never encountered any that were based on credit. All of them require payment up front, just like any insurance. Consequently to claim that social security is based on debt is not only inaccurate, but is actually a malicious lie obviously intended to discredit the welfare state.
    Even if it were true, a counterjihadist web site is not the proper venue to air opinions on such matters, which like racism are divisive and distract from the struggle against Islamic supremacy.

    • Tekyo, I’m a Brit about to turn 70 (on the 22nd, if you’d care to send me a greeting!) and I must inform you that in the UK, state (as opposed to private or work-related) pensions are not funded by investment.

    • “Many biological mechanisms have become useless in civilized life, and in my opinion racism is one of them (assuming that it has a biological component). So just because it may have served our cave-dwelling ancestors doesn’t mean that it is useful today.”

      Have you seen the lecture by the Danish professor explaining the correlation between IQ difference and northern latitude? It’s not surprising that different population evolve different traits. IQ, skin color, body structure, … everything. Nature does not exclude something because it might hurt someone’s feelings.

      The term racism in itself is way too broad to accurately pinpoint what’s going on though. Not to mention vastly over and misused, which is another topic entirely.

      My understanding of the matter is this: human beings are broadly speaking similar to eachother up to a certain point. Genetically and physically. Once you start looking close enough though, significant differences start arising. Flipping the script, you can say you have most in common with those you share the most physical and genetical traits with.

      However, nature does not care about morality. Meaning, where practically every other animal will feel mostly connected to their close relatives and fellow species, so will humans. You can call it whatever you want, but it doesn’t make it less true. However, branding it as evil does make it hard to talk about. Consequently, something that is hard to talk about is even harder to understand and research.

      Racism has been given a negative connotation by the moral flavor of our time. However, it’s much like saying hunting is bad. It’s delusionally naive to think that our conscious mind can and should overcome subconscious tendencies that have been rooted in our very genetic coding for millions of years simply because of the fact that we don’t like it at this point in time.

      You might be able to try and convince yourself you’re not racist. Like we collectively try or pretend to try, but you’re fighting something that is way older and more powerful than you can fathom. It’s not a wise battle to pick to say the least.

      Does that mean it can not be done? Not necessarily. It can, I guess. However, as mentioned before, not all populations will be equally capable of taking on that battle. From what I can tell, higher IQ is also linked to higher self control. Self control in turn allows you to have a step up in this battle. Great. But not everyone has a high IQ. Some populations have a lower mean IQ. What you will most likely end up with is a small percentage of the population claiming they are not racist and a larger percentage -at best- being utterly confused of what they’re supposed to think or do.

      So, what, then do we think we will achieve? Some sort of pseudo kumbaya environment where smart people can claim the moral highground and pat themselves on the back for pretending to be holier than nature from which they had gotten their capacity to breathe in the first place? A situation where all the smart people start pointing fingers and scratching their heads at people with less self control, claiming they can’t comprehend how one could do act x or y?

      Does that help humanity in any way shape or form?

      In my honest opinion, let’s first start seeing past our moral coloring of the concept that we call racism and really look into it from an evolutionary biological perspective. At the same time, dig deep into the anthropological and personal differences in people and try to discover the boons and talents certain persons and groups have and how to maximize their specific potentials. At the same time, work WITH ‘racism’, not against. Accept that people of similar genetic and physical makeup prefer to live amongst and with their own, mixing only marginally with exotic races and more so with neighbouring races.

      We’re born to be different from eachother, personally but definitely also collectively to a certain degree. Acting like we’re not because of a moral concept, will only drag us deeper into a cesspool of which we don’t really know the depth.

      Why can’t we just start with accepting and understanding reality before making judgements about it?

      • I have a couple of comments on your letter.

        “Racism” is an ambiguous term. Here is the definition of “racism” that most people would find undesirable:
        1) You have two people equally qualified for a position: IQ, experience, personality and past successes. You decide to hire the white solely on the basis that you don’t want a black person working for you. Worse, you deny a highly-qualified black a position in favor of a less-qualified white because you don’t want a black working for you.

        Here is a definition of “racism” which is often used:
        2) You believe blacks are less intelligent than whites. You believe that blacks commit more criminal and anti-social acts than whites. I purposely left out qualifiers such as “on the average”. People defend themselves from charges of being racist of this type by pointing out they have black friends, black spouses, or black employees in high positions.

        The problem is, blacks by any objective measure, have fewer scholars, fewer highly-productive people, and more criminal incarceration than whites. You can explain this by citing genetic race differences (racism) or by attributing it to discrimination or bad treatment by whites (non-racist).

        The claim that blacks are exactly the same in natural abilities as whites, but suffer because of white discrimination, becomes thinner all the time. This is why ever more vigorous censorship is being implemented. The more something shows up right in front of your eyes, the more effort is required to suppress discussion of it.

        Just look at any video of blacks rioting, especially where they are given the opportunity to speak. Their incoherent thinking, violent tendencies and barely-intelligible speech becomes apparent through their own words. I do not need to point out that rioting blacks is a sub-selection of blacks and this does not imply there are no productive, law-abiding or coherent blacks.

        What I will say is that identity politics has its own rules of profit and loss, and that there is no way to discuss racial differences or equal treatment without reference to race, without being called a racist. Or without being threatened with economic or possibly physical, reprisals. In other words, some people profit by enforcing an untrue, unsustainable ideal of race and racism, and will use any means, violent or otherwise, to maintain their centers of profit and power.

        Therefore, the only way to surge ahead in social progress for any and all people, is to totally ignore the possibility of being called racist, and to be unconcerned with it, whatever your individual beliefs or knowledge.

  9. Never heard of Breibart but I was unfortunate enough to experience the high handed removal of my mild anti-Muslims/anti-Islam comments in a
    UK learning website. It is bad enough with those Islamic terrorists using various sorts of acts of terrorism to silence us but when a learning website misused their educational power to prevent us from expressing our unpleasant experience with Muslims, they are just descending into a slippery slope of oppressive totalitarianism.

    If a learning website in UK and many of its participants could behave in such an intolerant manner, I just dread to think what is happening in the rest of UK.

  10. I was not banned from Breitbart, but my comment below was “removed”. For what I do not know. I cast no slurs, pejoratives etc. I guess someone just not liking it is enough? WTH is going on? Google doing the comment reviews at Breitbart now?

    Discussion on Breitbart News Network 1157 comments

    MSNBC’s Joy Reid: ‘Fox News Has Decided the Grist for the Ratings Mill Is Black People’

    12 days ago

    I am sick of celebrities talking [nonsense] and now they whine when called on it. Joy Reid was barely coherent, let’s not give her or any other person on that panel time and space in our heads. He gets to “sit up here talking about social injustice…” says the $275 million dollar man….

  11. While Breitbart is criticizing Facebook’s censorship, they might try explaining their own censorship. Lately, several of my comments have resulted in the message: “Hold on, this is waiting to be approved by Breitbart News Network”–and then the comment never appears. My comments are never obscene and seldom offensive and nearly always in agreement with the article. Why is this happening?

    • A number of people are asking the same question. Sometimes I think they ought to give up the comment sections – there is some real vile stuff there, stuff Breitbart wouldn’t have wanted.

  12. I tried to comment on Briebart today, and it was put on hold. The trigger word was GOY. When I changed it to BOY, the comment went through.

Comments are closed.