Chapter 2: Watching Liberals Tie Themselves Into Illiberal Knots

By their own logic, liberals have to quit wielding the brush when they find they’ve painted themselves into The Krazy Korner. Dr Turley explains what they’ve done regarding Alex Jones (and, en passant, Tommy Robinson). As I do, Dr T. thinks this is not the last act:

A conundrum for the Left. A battle in which they are hoist with their own petard.
The non-Left need do nothing but observe their ‘the-end-justifies-any-means’ frenzied antics.

What’s not to love?

26 thoughts on “Chapter 2: Watching Liberals Tie Themselves Into Illiberal Knots

  1. Well Disqus dropped him yesterday. So no comments there. I guess they think he makes a difference in elections. If they get away with it here I think they will do it to other sites as well. I don’t use facebook or twitter and just go to the websites I go to so I hadn’t experienced the affect. Occasionally someone will put something out that links to more information – more often on this site. That is all gone there.

    • If they get away with it here I think they will do it to other sites as well.

      That is the whole point. And what I failed to point out is that this ban was coordinated; it wasn’t random coincidence.

      But Alex Jones does have a website, and he still has videos:

      https://www.prisonplanet.com/

      http://tv.infowars.com/

      So they don’t yet have the power to ban him entirely. Had Hillary been elected, he’d have lost that platform, too.

    • He had started a channel on Bitchute a while ago too. I had started an account on Disqus years ago because you have to possess one of the big social media accounts to post comments on many sites. I might not delete it yet but I won’t be using it anymore if not rarely. And maybe someday they’ll delete me. A badge of honor it would be.

  2. Another great video, doc! Just as Stalin’s wonderful 1936 constitution was lauded for its democratic credentials as he began the great terror, so today we have his mini-me’s across the globe talking about their wonderful algorithms whilst purging the net. It didn’t end too well for the good ole USSR, and I don’t think it will for the valley guys and gals either.

  3. What he says is perfectly obvious to us all except that “liberals” have stopped being liberal long ago. But the internet information super highway is controlled by leftists who are fine with banning speech and expression thay they don’t like. “National conservatives” don’t have control.

    Thus far, I don’t see any moves toward stopping this dangerous trend of denying the internet information highway to those whose views the lefties don’t like–and for the flimsiest of reasons. Just who is going to stop them? So far, no one.

    I do not like more government regulation. But it may be that the government will have to start regulating these big companies as “utilities” in a way analogous to the regulation of telephone service providers–that is, telephone and cell phone company providers cannot censor what people say on calls. I can’t see another solution. Can anyone else?

    • No, I don’t see an immediate solution to their frightened, frenzied behavior. Except that anyone who frequents those venues should ask themselves if using the lemming-left is something they want to continue doing.

      We have government regulation of many “utilities” and don’t baulk at those impositions of rule upon the people who run the old technologies that we need. Silicon Valley needs to feel the hand of regulation. They are powerful and lawless; it’s time they faced the same rules as, say, the local radio station. That station isn’t vital to our safety or comfort. Neither are the products of the arrogant whiz kids in Happy Valley in any way “vital”. WOuld millions go into withdrawal if you removed their phones? Sure: sobriety hurts.

      I think the solution will evolve, one way or another. That makes the outcome of the mid-term elections in November all the more crucial.

      • The first amendment clearly states Congress cannot make a law prohibiting freedom of speech, of the press, or the establishment of religion. Social media is clearly under the definition of “press”.

        It is necessary to realize that once we talk about regulating the content of the press, social media, because it is a “public utility”, not mentioned in the Constitution, we necessarily have trashed and invalidated the entire meaning of the First Amendment. The logical conclusion of invalidating the First Amendment is that people like Alex Jones, Richard Spencer and yes, Dympthna, can be not only blocked by social media, but criminalized by a government no longer bound by the First Amendment.

        Seeing perfectly rational, non-violent people arbitrarily banned by a cabal of snot-nosed, Asperger geniuses can definitely bring out strong emotions, strong enough to not sufficiently examine the long-term consequences of what looks to be a policy of relief.

        My own solution is a combination of enforcing common-sense, common-law business practices, and otherwise make sure there are no impediments to alternative information distributing systems, such as Patreon.

        The government sets a limit on the freedom of contract. For example, selling yourself into slavery would not be upheld by any court. Similarly, when venues like PayPal and YouTube arbitrarily and without warning drop clients and bitbleach their archives, customer lists and customer communications, I don’t care what the fine-print legalese of the agreement is: full compensation can be enshrined in law and enforced by a court, constitutionally.

        Once we nullify the First Amendment, we will become like Britain, who sends cops to the door and people to jail for Facebook postings.

  4. I hope this important video from Dr Turley goes viral. He totally eviscerates the dangerous absurdity that is the Left’s political narrative.

  5. I know lots of ‘liberals’ who have long ago stopped being liberals. They are the ones who ‘believe in free speech but that doesn’t give you the right to use hate speech and we will decide what is and is not hate speech because we are good and pure and nice.’

  6. Am I the only one who get the impression that this commenter is droning on for far too long? What he said is 13 minutes could be said just as well, and with greater impact, in a minute or two. Does he have to speak for a fixed duration with every video?

    • I usually limit videos to no more than fifteen minutes. Dr Turley’s presentations don’t go over that. If you can find anyone who regularly presents video material in shorter form – WITH as much information – please let us know. No, I don’t think two minutes would have a greater impact. Sometimes “instant” isn’t better.

  7. Oh yes I agree with Dr. Turley’s assessment. But the intended perjorative term of ‘nationalist’ doesn’t work in the US. Because the nationalist supports the most Libertarian form of government on the planet and it’s called a Constitutional Republic.[…]

    It was never meant to be a democracy where the mob oligarchy ruled the commanding heights of the society such as the ‘Democratic’ socialist Murphy fantasizes in his collectivist delusional world. We aren’t the “Nationalist” Socialists that existed in Germany from 1933 to 1945. But that’s what they’re trying to associate American Nationalists with, even though in fact they are those exact same German National Socialists in too many ways.

    Too bad people, for the most part, aren’t able to make such simple distinctions of terms.

    Too bad people think they can skip important distinctions because it’s easier to follow the popular prejudices and stereotypes of the ignorant masses. It’s tantamount to believing the 21st Century began in the year 2000 instead of 2001. Anyone remember who endorsed that one? Anyone?

    • It was never meant to be a democracy where the mob oligarchy ruled the commanding heights of the society…

      In any group, there are elites and, for better or worse, they rule. The elites wrote our Founding documents; they didn’t believe in universal suffrage, either. Most of them didn’t believe in slavery but they let it in because without that poison, there would have been no apple at all. In two generations, it would mean the deaths of 700,000+ people – mostly young men. Should we have refused the union of north and south? Hard to say. Britain first brought slaves to the Commonwealth of Virginia (when it ran out of debtors for indenture). Since Virginia was a commercial enterprise, it knuckled under and took slaves, with all the resulting history.

      One cannot escape hierarchies; they exist in families, community groups, workplaces, etc.,i.e., wherever people clump and live. As Jordan Peterson has pointed out, even lobsters (who existed long before humanity ever came to be) form hierarchies. Just one reason current feminists hate him.

      I don’t see where Dr Turley makes nationalism a pejorative idea. His main theme reiterated time and again, is that rising nationalism with its borders (re)established, will replace globalism and that traditional ideas will replace secularism. He often says “we live in a post-globalist, post-secular world”.

  8. No freakin’ regulation of net companies as ‘utilities’. How about someone just start up an alternative? Gab is there to replace twatter. And really.. are FB and these other social media outlets actually necessary to live? If anyone thinks so they are daft.

    • No freakin’ regulation of net companies as ‘utilities’.

      So the idea freaks you out? It is no different in principle from regulating phones, airwaves, or modes of travel. There are anti-trust rules for media conglomerates already in place and they could easily be applied to ‘social’ media.

      I wouldn’t mind seeing FB with real competition, but at the moment the whole principle depends on a singular node that many people use. That could be broken up into many nodes which could interface – in the same way that Bell Telephone was broken up and the resulting competition from smaller phone companies made for a stronger, more competitive industry.

      As a comparison television (and radio) aren’t necessary to live either; we haven’t had a TV since 1979 and don’t miss it. But those who do sit in front of the boob tube for hours on end aren’t “daft”, despite our opinion.

      Google sits on more than fifty billion dollars in cash assets while conducting business in a state (California) which has the largest homeless population in the U.S. and the worst public schools, right down there with poverty-stricken Mississippi. So obviously, Google could use that money productively – say, to invest in start-ups in other industries or to create opportunities for the under-educated poor – but they don’t. That kind of hoarding would be a useful issue for the public to address.

      • Talking about phones, there was a lively competition among phone companies providing phone service until about 1910, when Theodore Vail, president of AT&T, convinced congress and state legislatures that telephones were a “natural monopoly” that needed to be regulated. The devil’s agreement was that the legislatures would protect AT&T from competition; AT&T submitted to regulation and provided a certain number of public services.

        Needless to say, AT&T made out like a bandit. The breaking up of AT&T was not so much actually splitting the company as it was relaxing the regulations of almost 3/4 of a century keeping competition out of the phone industry.

        My argument is that the First Amendment absolutely forbids any regulation of media based on content: absolutely and unequivocally. Once you begin requiring media to print or promulgate information of a particular orientation, you have nullified the First Amendment, absolutely, logically and conclusively.

        Under that logic, it won’t be so long (say, the next Democratic-majority government) that your (Dymphna) communications will not only not have access to YouTube, but will be criminalized, like in Britain.

  9. Just my opinion, but I think Dr. Turley places too much faith in the fact that the Left is holding a contradictory position of denying their own liberal values. The Left itself doesn’t care about that. They’re not worried about a logically consistent ideology. They have their own motivations. They just want what they want, and that’s power.

    I’m not optimistic about normal, moderate, Liberals moving away from the Left by reasoned argument either. The Left appeals to them on an emotional level with hope, envy, fairness, entitlement, etc. And it works. That’s why “We’re not against free speech, we’re against hate speech” makes perfect sense to most Liberals. Reasoning has nothing to do with it.

    Communism has a 100% failure rate and a century’s worth of mass graves across the world. You would think a rational mind would draw some conclusions from that. Yet we see Socialsm and Communism making amazing gains amongst middle class college kids in America. Just look at Bernie Sanders’ success in 2016. For most people the hope an ideology gives them has far more persuasive effect than whether it’s actually a rational policy.

    I think most of the moderates who leave the Left won’t do so by noticing its internal contradictions but only when they begin to feel the heat. When the fear, pain and misery begins to come into their lives then they’ll move. Some of them will never leave. Reason has its place but I think it’s a weak tool in changing minds from one political outlook to another.

    • I think leftists actually have different thought processes than we (rational nationalists) do. They don’t respond to logic, and are not equipped to look at the long-term consequences of their actions. Even if pointed out to them, long-term does not exist in their reality.

      The classic liberals, having aspects in common with reasonable libertarians (not all libertarians are reasonable) are tending to gravitate towards the nationalists, leaving the Democrats more uniformly hard left.

  10. First, I cut the cable out, so now my tv option is Amazon Prime. Or purchased DVDs. I go months without watching the tv. My neighbors & friends all say, “But what do you DO at night?” Like there is no other option. Try reading, sewing, playing with the dogs, visiting my favorite blogs……….oh and there is actual physical work that I can accomplish. Who says that you can’t clean the dining hutch at 8pm? Good grief! Take a walk!
    Second, Facebook ticked me off. I got this holier-than-thou message that I was to “remove a comment” that didn’t jive with Zuckerberg’s upper class list of approved behaviors. I never removed the comment-I removed Facebook. Zuckerberg needs me, I don’t need Zuckerberg.
    Third, my life is healthier and happier with these simple actions. I don’t publish what restaurant I’m dining in, I don’t update my daily life, and I certainly don’t get in lifestyle arguments with strangers. I do miss interacting with my dog groups, and I miss posting pics of my dogs.
    Four, No Apologies, No Arguments, and No Explanations. Try this freeing change in your own life. We need to reassert our Bill of Rights. And I hope that Alex Jones sues the hell out of all these social justice media morons.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.