Purge Begins: Cloudflare Terminates Service to Cody Wilson’s GhostGunner Website

By Activist Post

A day after Cloudflare removed service to the Daily Stormer, it has now terminated service to Cody Wilson’s website GhostGunner.net, Wilson announced on Twitter:

Yesterday the Electronic Frontier Foundation warned that this behavior to remove offensive speech is a dangerous path for technology companies to go down.

EFF lawyers wrote:

In the wake of Charlottesville, both GoDaddy and Google have refused to manage the domain registration for the Daily Stormer, a neo-Nazi website that, in the words of the Southern Poverty Law Center, is “dedicated to spreading anti-Semitism, neo-Nazism, and white nationalism.” Subsequently Cloudflare, whose service was used to protect the site from denial-of-service attacks, has also dropped them as a customer, with a telling quote from Cloudflare’s CEO: “Literally, I woke up in a bad mood and decided someone shouldn’t be allowed on the Internet. No one should have that power.”

We agree. Even for free speech advocates, this situation is deeply fraught with emotional, logistical, and legal twists and turns. All fair-minded people must stand against the hateful violence and aggression that seems to be growing across our country. But we must also recognize that on the Internet, any tactic used now to silence neo-Nazis will soon be used against others, including people whose opinions we agree with.

It appears that Wilson, the inventor of the first successful 3D-printed gun, is ready for a fight. He goes directly after Cloudflare’s CEO Matthew Prince on Twitter.

Never one to back down from a challenge, when PayPal and others dropped service to his Defense Distributed project, Wilson turned to bitcoin to fund his operation. Because of that, Wilson worked to develop an anonymous wallet for the cryptocurrency called Dark Wallet. Wilson is also in a legal battle against the State Department over whether CAD files for printable gun designs fall under gun manufacturing laws.

Wilson continued to savage Cloudfare’s Prince on Twitter:

Wilson also recently launched Hatreon, a tongue-in-cheek competitor to Patreon which recently banned “hate speech” from its platform.

Newsweek wrote this about Hatreon:

Finding funding on the internet is hard—especially if your ideas are despised by almost everyone. Just ask members of the so-called alt-right, the pro-Donald Trump white nationalist movement that received considerable attention during the 2016 presidential election. These guys often get barred from online funding platforms like Patreon, GoFundMe and PayPal.

Enter Hatreon, a new crowdfunding service. Like Patreon, Hatreon allows users to donate money to their favorite internet personalities, while the website takes a small cut. But Hatreon doesn’t have any “hate speech” restrictions. Which is perhaps why it’s attracted controversial figures such as alt-right leader Richard Spencer and Andrew Anglin, founder of neo-Nazi news site The Daily Stormer.

In 2014, PayPal cut off Anglin from its service for promoting “hate, violence, racial intolerance or the financial exploitation of a crime,” according to an email from the company that Anglin published on his site. The Daily Stormer is looking for new funding because it is being sued by the Southern Poverty Law Center for organizing a harassment campaign against a Jewish woman in Montana. (In an email, Anglin took issue with the argument that his First Amendment speech could be limited because private businesses are free to deny someone service.)

As an activist entrepreneur, whenever Wilson gets annoyed by petty power, he seems to build a new business to help others expand personal liberty. We look forward to what he builds out of this challenge.

This article is Creative Commons and can be republished in full with attribution. Like Activist Post on Facebook, subscribe on YouTube, follow on Twitter and at Steemit.

Activist Post Daily Newsletter

Subscription is FREE and CONFIDENTIAL
Free Report: How To Survive The Job Automation Apocalypse with subscription

56 Comments on "Purge Begins: Cloudflare Terminates Service to Cody Wilson’s GhostGunner Website"

  1. Corporations are created by the State, via a corporate charter. Originally, they were created ostensibly to provide some societal benefit that could not be easily provided by individuals or common law partnerships. They are not just creations of, but instruments of the State. Therefore, when Google, Facebook or any other corporation on the internet refuses to provide its service solely to censor the information being disseminated, it’s government censorship.

    • Hate speech is not “information.” It is behavior intended to destroy the rights of others and to tolerate intolerance is to be complicit in crushing the rights of others. Germany learned from the Nazi era that tolerating hate speech leads to genocide and it isno longer tolerated; yet Germany has a much larger spectrum of opinion and perspectives in its power structure, including the Green party,which in the US is effectively rendered impotent.

      Hate speech is the enemy of free speech and human rights. To defend the right to promote discrimination and violence against others is to become part of the fascist movement.

      Hate speech is the justification and prelude to hate crimes. Who can look back at the hate speech of Hitler and say, “Wow, we didn’t see that coming.” Why should individual libel be a crime but collective libel be defended.

      See Marcuse’s classic essay on Repressive Tolerance for a complete philosophical defense of human rights based on prohibiting speech which denies it.

  2. The answer is to create alternative platforms and many of them.

    • Bingo. Freedom means neither being compelled nor prohibited to do what others demand of you.

      • Freedom means NOT doing things which destroy freedom such as hate speech. With freedom come responsibilities. If the law demands you drive safely you have no cause to rebel because this is to protect the rights of others to a safe journey. Only the immature see freedom as licence.

        • Freedom means NOT doing things which destroy freedom such as hate speech.

          What the crap does that mean? speech doesn’t destroy freedom, what in the world are you on about?

          And there isn’t any such thing as “hate speech”. There is only speech. Hate speech is nothing but a pejorative label designed to demonize opinions that the speaker doesn’t like and wants to suppress.

          • That’s not crap; that’s history. Hitler’s hate speech both justified and incited first persutioin, then genocide. Hate speech against blacks was the prelude to lynchings.

            When Trump said “Mexicans are rapists,” he was believed by millions. Hate crimes spiked. If you believe him and a Mexican came to rent, you would refuse him thinking he was a rapist.

            Speech is behavior which influences, incites, and rationalizes action. Hate speech is the prelude to hate crimes, and that is not an opinion but the historical record.

            When people use hate speech, they incite persecution, discrimination, and/or violence.
            That is not a theory but a fact. Hate speech, objectively, is speech which results in mistreating the targets of hatred, whether Jews, Muslims, refugees, or Mexicans.

            It is very real and often leads to genecide as in Nazi Germany or Rwanda.

            There are many opinions I don’t like that are not hate speech; it’s not about whether you like it or not but whether it is likely to lead to some form of mistreatment.

            A good example is dehumanizing speech, calling people parasites or vermin or cockroaches. The Nazis called jews parasites to rationalize murdering them; in the US natives were called subhuman to justify exterminating them; in Rwanda, the Tutsi were called cockroaches, and when this term was used on the radio, it set off the mass slaughter of hundreds of thousands.

            The neo-Nazi movement in the US has cleverly framed their efforts to mainstream hate speech as free speech, but history teaches us that hate speech ends up destroying the rights of others. That is why nations like Germany, which have faced up to their history, have banned it. Tolerance of intolerance is complicit in the destruction of human freedom. See Herbert Marcuse’s classic Repressive Tolerance for a deep explanation.

            Individual libel is a crime because it damages a person’s rights; hate speech is collective libel and has led to not only damaging the rights of millions but to mass murder.

            Hate speech IS the enemy of freedom and thus free speech. It is very real. It’s consequences are undeniable. You can live in denial or not. If you deny that hate speech exists or rationalizes hate crimes, you are complicit in the crimes that it justifies. This may be a new concept to you, but for that reason alone, it is worth entertaining as having historical value.

          • Donna Cunningham | July 15, 2018 at 11:31 pm |

            Ok your stupidity aside. Really!!!!

    • Exactly: one of the foundations of democracy is a free and diverse press. Of course media which promotes hate speech and fake news cannot be tolerated for just as bad money drives out good, indecent media drives out the decent. Hate speech is the enemy of free speech; ask the Germans or italians.

  3. the joo parasite is about to kill it’s host.

    • How ugly you are, my sad friend. What is sadder is that so many on activist post tolerate this kind of fascist bigotry.

      • What’s fascist about his comment? And what’s bigoted about it? Did you know that the word bigot is a religious slur? Ironic that people would use a religious slur to pejoratize comments they don’t like. Bigot really just means someone that doesn’t have any tolerance or patience for your stupid ideas.

      • Donna Cunningham | July 15, 2018 at 11:09 pm | Reply

        Not as many as they wish.

  4. Here is a question. Back in the 1950s and 1960s, when the US Government decided to stomp on the sacred right of free association in the South and forced White owned Southern businesses to serve blacks or other minorities – didn’t the US Government base that tyrannical move on the concept that no privately owned business would be allowed to deny the free exercise of any citizen’s Constitutional rights?

    Fast forward to 2017 and here we have ‘privately owned’ technology companies deciding to do the very same thing that those White Southerners once did, when they made a business decision to discriminate against

    Would someone please try to explain to me how it was ‘wrong’ for White Southern private business owners to discriminate (and accept the loss of revenue) in the 1950s and 1960s, but, today, it is ‘OK’ for privately owned tech companies to discriminate and openly participate in a conspiracy to deny the First Amendment rights of either 2nd Amendment supporters and/or firearm businesses or to deny pro-White advocacy people or groups their right to exercise their First Amendment rights using the Internet?

    • Private businesses open to the public rely on public funding for sidewalks, roads, police, fire protection, courts, etc to function; that is why they must not discriminate.

      Your argument puts property rights above human rights, but human rights are universal and inherent, whereas private property is a late invention of society, being absent for most of human existence. Discriminating based on gender, race, or background is a form of fascism: do not expect the law to defend fascism, whose entire goal is the destruciton of human rights. The First Amendment is not a suicide pact.

      • FYI: Property rights are part of what it means to have human rights. Otherwise put, you don’t have human rights if you are denied your right to property. People laying claim to property goes back to the beginning of mankind. Your argument is false.

        • To me, the primary human rights are innate. Prior to the Agricultural Revolution, during which slavery, the state, religion, and war were invented, there was no concept of private property so it is not a primary right but rather a reflection of existing power relations.

          In today’s world, 5 billionaires have more property (ie wealth) than over 3 billion people. That is not a natural right but the result of a predatory capitalism which exploits labor and seizes wealth through legal and illegal means, including wars.

          The case against property is not about your personal possessions but that property which is derived from labor, accumulated and concentrated, and used to make more wealth, such as the billionaire class.

          “Behind each great fortune lies a great crime.” traditional French saying.

          Europeans stole native land and it became “private property.” British aristocrats fenced off the Commons and it became private property. In privatization, public assets are sold pennies on the dollar to the already rich. This is essentially theft. The transformation of the Commons (which Jefferson and Tom Paine both argued belonged to all) into private property is a great crime which now asserts it is a “human right.” That is how crime is legalized. “Everything Hitler did was legal,’ wrote Dr. King.

          The law, like property rights, reflects not basic human rights but the power of the ruling class to make the laws and protect what they have seized, calling it hypocritically “human rights.”

          Private property (again not your personal possessions, which are for personal use and not for gain) has hijacked the concept of a right to make legal what was, at one point, stolen from the Commons.

          • J. Sebastian | August 22, 2017 at 3:40 pm |

            Europeans stole native land and it became “private property.”

            Well, leaving aside that the Indians didn’t actually believe people could even own the land, how could it be stolen? You’re applying a Western conception of land and property rights to a culture that didn’t even believe that humans could own the land.

            So this is a false equivocation , and done really just to denigrate colonization and to demonize Westerners as thieves and aggressors, when in reality, they haven’t behaved differently than any other human being in history. All land has been fought over for all of history – even by, and very ferociously and savagely, the primitive peoples whose culture and society didn’t even include private land ownership. So that’s a non-starter. However, now these land issues and disputes are over – its all been settled. We’ve got 7.5B people on this little rock, and the national boundaries and property boundaries within them, are what they are. We are not going to “re-litigate” historical disputes over land and fight all these wars all over again. It’s settled. We now have a universal system and concept of land ownership, that functions pretty much the same way all over the civilized world, and a system of laws and courts to resolve disputes.

            British aristocrats fenced off the Commons and it became private property.

            You’re referring here to the Enclosure Acts, but even Marx stated that the conversion of these lands was the only thing that allowed society to progress from the feudal era to the industrial age. Without this transformation that you decry, the Industrial Revolution could not have occurred, because everyone would still be back mucking around in the wood or the bog trying to eke out enough of a sustenance to avoid starving or freezing to death.

            Remember also that under the manor system the Commons were already private property – belonging to the sovereign or his lord or duke and available to the vassals, serfs, indentured, and sometimes freemen that worked the land but still paid rents or tithes to the lord or parish in exchange for protection.

            In the US, the Indian Wars led to the conclusion of various treaties enacted into law that conceded that Indians had property rights and were entitled to compensation and reparations for their displacement from the disputed territory and to occupy their own lands in the future; hence today the Indian nation is 600 separate sovereign nations located within the borders of the United States, from which the inhabitants derive the sole use of income and rents from industrialization and natural resource extraction, and to whom the US taxpayer makes annual support payments of more than 20 billion dollars for Health and Education and Economic Development.

            Tell me, in your confident designation of the European-American as a thief and incorrigible abuser of human rights, does the thief unilaterally recognize the victims’ vested rights in the disputed property and pledge to make generous reparations in perpetuity?

            And its convenient for you to overlook all the many ills of these primitive property-sharing systems, like feudalism, which were much more like chattel slavery in practice than I think you’d be comfortable with, in order to take a dig at western “imperialists” and colonizers, and to make a classist statement about wealth inequality.

            But its hardly intellectually an honest approach. So that is why you’ve been called out on it.

          • Donna Cunningham | July 15, 2018 at 11:22 pm |

            Pipe dream. Nothing s settled. Never has been.

        • Laying claim to property is originally done as an act of aggression, as when the Enclosure Acts by the aristocracy made it legal to fence in the Commons and declare it private property or when Columbus and Cortez put a flag in the ground and declared that ground the property of Spain, thus stealing the Commons from the natives. Privatization in Chili, Russia, and the US surrenders the Commons to private oligarchs for pennies on the dollar, a form of legalized theft. Why should a property stolen a hundred years ago now be MY propery. Under the banner of justice, it is a theft compounded, not justified, by the passage of time.

          Even Jefferson and Tom Paine argued that natural resources,the land,the bounty of the sea, the mineral wealth, the rivers, etc belonged to humanity as a whole and anyone who claimed them as private property was rationalizing theft. If stolen property is then handed down, does that make it protected as private property. In my view, the loss of stolen property makes the crime each year the crime continues.

          For 95% of human existence, there was no concept of private property, according to archeologists and anthropologists and even Columbus, whose first encounters were with a peaceful ,sharing tribe that “had no concept of private property.” This concept arose only with the Agricultural Revolution, 12,000 years ago, along with concepts of slavery, rule, the state, religion, and war. Prior to this time, resources were shared. I urge you to study the findings of modern science, which confirm that at the beginning of mankind until 12,000 years ago, there was no private property: the concept did not exist and did not make sense.

      • Online businesses also rely on public funding for courts, police protection (from such things as fraud, theft and hacking), and to some extent the technological infrastructure the Internet is based on. Read your phone/Internet bill some time; notice the taxes?

        • What is your point, John? Online businesses (I have run online businesses) are pubic accommodations and fall under the Civil Rights provisions.

          In your home, you may choose based on any criteria who may enter, but if you have a business open to the public, you are bound by law not to discriminate based on gender, race, background, etc.

          The universal human right to be treated equally or fairly trumps property laws when a business is open to the public and relies on public funding to support the public infrastructure. Whether a business in online or not does not matter.

          • My point is that basing the argument on public funding is fallacious, and that the right to property and freedom to associate are inseparable. One cannot exist without the other.

      • There’s a universal and inherent right to have someone else bake a cake for you?

        • There is a universal human right to be treated equally and fairly. Any business that uses public infrastructure, funded by the public, such as sidewalks, roads, courts, police, etc has no right to exclude the public based on such features as gender, background, etc.

          If you are a baker and rely on public infrastructure, you have no right to refuse the public based on racism sexism, etc. This is the foundation of the concept of pubic accomodations. Human rights trump your personal prejudice.

          • InfinityBall | August 21, 2017 at 8:03 pm |

            This is completely moronic. You’re saying that because we have roads, we have pre-existing human rights. You haven’t thought this through at all, and look like a putz.

          • That might be moronic but that is not my point. We have a right to be treated fairly. That is the first point.

            The second explains why property rights do not override this basic and inherent right: property rights in the form of a business open to the public relies on public funding for infrastructure and therefore owes back to the public that supplies that infrastructure (all of us) fair treatment.

            Don’t you believe in fair treatment?

          • J. Sebastian | August 22, 2017 at 5:30 pm |

            Everyone relies on public infrastructure whether its a business or not. This is not an argument for anything, it just points out that public infrastructure is used by everybody. So what? That doesn’t make it incumbent on everyone to behave the way YOU want them to.

          • That’s right but in your private life, your home, your friends, you are not open top public like businesses so you can be whatever kind of prejudiced asshole you want.

          • That’s right but in your private life, your home, your friends, you are not open top public like businesses so you can be whatever kind of prejudiced asshole you want.

            Whether something is open to the public has nothing to do with it.

            People have the right to do business with whoever they want to, and to not do business with whoever they don’t want to.

            Businesses don’t have any coercive powers. They are not governments. There is no force of law behind it. Who cares if they discriminate? If the public (ie, the market) disapproves, the business won’t be around very long because the public will not patronize them.

          • J. Sebastian | August 22, 2017 at 5:29 pm |

            There is a universal human right to be treated equally and fairly.

            Hogwash. Life isn’t “fair”. You have no right to demand anything by anyone else, except to be left alone.

          • This isn’t about “life” but about the morality of human conduct; since we have free will and can see the consequences of our actions, we are bound to do the least harm and to treat others with justice.

            The same universal concept, which is in all religions and ethical systems best described as the Golden Rule, has arised in Eastern philosophy in the concept of karma: since what we do to others comes back to us, we had best treat others as we want to be treated.

            Befcause, unlike rocks or lions, we have free will and foresight, we are bound to the ethical principles which are universal as a matter of fact.

            Your life is shitty hogwash won’t wash out, will it? We all have the right to be treated fairly…that is the essence of all systems of morality. Perhaps you are outside the universal principles?

          • We all have the right to be treated fairly…that is the essence of all systems of morality. Perhaps you are outside the universal principles?

            Fairness is totally subjective. There is no such thing as a universal principle of fairness, nor is citing “The golden rule” evidence of one. First of all, its not a moral framework. It is just an aphorism. From the bible, no less, which makes it worthless.

            And what about sadists and suicidal people?

    • Dale is a long time pro globalism SPLC-type operative who has been coming to A. Post for years to chide us as conspiracy wackos for our views on chemtrails, climate change, mandatory vaccinations, etc. He doesn’t believe in the First Amendment, it’s conditional to what he and his ilk define as “hate speech”. – Caveat emptor.

    • Donna Cunningham | July 15, 2018 at 11:14 pm | Reply

      Your hate destroys lives. In our Country we proved it would not tolerated during the Civil War and beyond.

  5. If pro-white groups are so bad, why terminate their accounts now? Why not last year, or just have initially refused them service in the first place?

    It seems half of the population just blindly follow MSM, and refuse to have their own unique opinion.

    • Better late than never.Would you have said when slavery was abolished, if slavery is so bad, why was it not abolished earlier? We know from history that “pro-white groups” have led to genocide and the deaths of tens of millions of innocent people.

      • Pro-white groups and slavery are two different subjects. Genocide has been done on every continent by many races.

        • Pro-white is a euphemism for white supremacy, a white-washing of a racist concept. It is no different from Aryan supremacy which led to the slave labor camps in the Nazi era and which was used to justify slavery in the US. Changing branding does not disguise its true roots.

          The worst genocide in all history was done in the name of white,or Aryan Supremacy. All genocides have used racial stereotypes and dehumanizing rhetoric to rationalize mass murder.

          White nationalism is a rebranding of white supremacy, which is the basis of racism in the US. Here are examples:

          “White Aryan Resistance (WAR) is a neo-Nazi white supremacist organization in the United States founded and led by former Ku Klux Klan Grand Dragon Tom Metzger.
          It holds views that are self-described as racist, as seen in its website sections “Racist Jokes” and “Racist Videos,” and in the tagline for its newspaper The Insurgent: “the most racist newspaper on earth.” WAR uses the slogan White Revolution is the Only Solution.
          Metzger’s first group was known as the White Brotherhood, which he led in the mid-1970s until joining David Duke’s Knights of the Ku Klux Klan in 1975.” Wiki

          David Duke, of course, is the man Trump had denounced in 1999 but during the election campaign in 2016 said he had never heard of. Duke was one of the stars of the recent white nationalist rally in Charlotteville, and tweeted after Trump’s defense of the alt-right demonsration: “”Thank you President Trump for your honesty & courage to tell the truth about #Charlottesville & condemn the leftist terrorists in BLM/Antifa,”

          Both the American Nazi party and the Klu Klux Klan, which were out in force at the recent rally,deny they are racist. You can believe them if you agree with them.

          Slavery was justified by the racial theory of white superiority and black inferiority. Pro-white groups today trace their foots to the racial theories of the slave era. The genocides of native Americans and African-Americans (tens of millions perished, mostly in childhood from inhumane living conditions) were both justified by racial theories.

          What are two different subjects is the nationalism of those who have been oppressed and of those who have done the oppression. Nationalism of the oppressed is regarded as liberation nationalism (from foreign and/or racial masters) whereas the nationalism of the oppressors is tyrannical, being used to rationalize the oppression.

          For a full explanation of the difference, I would recommend the books of Fritz Fanon, whose work has influenced both academics and the liberation struggle of the poor from South Africa to Palestine.

          From a scientific or biological perspective, there is no such thing as race, other than as a social construct used to justify slavery. The reason is that there is more variation within the thousands of population groups than among them. All professonal anthropology and biology associations have confirmed this finding of modern genetics. Plants do have races; human beings do not, so all racial theories are, at root, ideologies refuted by genetic science. There is not such thing as the white race or the black race except as devised by racial theory several centuries back to justify the exploitation of dark colored peoples. Prior to modern times, color of skin was as irrelevant as color of hair or eyes.

          White pride is a mask for a racial theory rooted in slavery and today adopted by those who feel threatened by the changing demographics of a nation which is still 3/4 of European ancestry. The real motivation goes back to economic marginalzation caused by neo-liberal economic policies of crushing labor movements and moving jobs offshore to slave labor nations.

          The, following Goebbel’s principle #18 of the Principles of Propaganda, recently used by Trump in demonizing Mexicans as ‘rapists and criminals,’ white nationalism “displaces anger onto targets of hatret,” which are always the most vulnerable groups, in German the Jews who were less than 1% of the population and in the US most recently, undocumented immigrants and refugees from violence, both of which groups are all but defenseless.

          The fact that genocide has been practiced on other continents does not change the fact that it is always preceded by some kind of racial theory which demonizes another group as sub-human, vermin, parasites to be exterminated, and that in the Western World, where the worst genocides in history, from the native Americans to the Jews, were justified by ideologies of white superiority or privilege.

          The thing to be proud of is not your mythical white DNA but rather your struggle to defeat racism and white privilege in your own community. This has nothing to do with race and everything to do with conscience.

          • Wow that is a lot of anti-science nonsense for one post. There absolutely are races.
            Genetic cluster analysis proves that. The theory of evolution predicts it.

            As for the worst genocide in history…it was certainly not committed by whites nor was it committed in Europe.

        • Donna Cunningham | July 16, 2018 at 7:51 am | Reply

          The article just popped up again on Google news. Which reopened. This stuff never goes away. Just remember that. So go on back to you whittling.

      • More nonsense. Genocide and the deaths of millions have been caused by all peoples not just whites. Ever hear of Mao? Or Pol Pot?

    • Donna Cunningham | July 15, 2018 at 11:36 pm | Reply

      Because there is nothing pro about it. Go hide, like you did the first time you lost this battle. Better for your well being and others.

  6. CalmerthanyouR | August 19, 2017 at 8:23 am | Reply

    I am against censorship by the government. But I’m for things like not cursing around little children, lowering one’s voice in the library, and not answering cellphones while eating at a restaurant. That’s self censorship in a way, in the pursuit of tact. Neo-nazi’s are fucking embarassing, and as a white male myself if I saw some fellow WM spouting racist divisionist propaganda, I’d try to silence him myself if I could. Out of tact, because they’re stinking up the area with dumb shit no-one wants to hear. This article by activistpost makes me feel like this site is sympathizing with these type of low-level thinking, us and them dividing, embarassments to the human race. SMH

  7. who is writing all this?? CIA, DOD, or Rockefellers, or all together falsifying the science for decades?? ANYTHING done on a ‘social’ computer platform, is controlled to an unimaginable level, thus fraudulent..

  8. “The Purge Begins”- What? There is a massive censorship push occurring on every major platform. It has greatly intensified in the last 6 months but it has been going on for years. I could spend all day giving examples.

    • Donna Cunningham | July 15, 2018 at 11:28 pm | Reply

      It’s about time. They’ll find the alternative sites also. Your not going to turn our Country into a hellhole of hate and fascism.

  9. Stalinist communism, for state capitalism (the state controls all the capital, the opposite of communism is when the workers own and control the means of production and the capital (or profits) are distributed among them), died in 1989, when the USSR and ten Eastern European regimes collapsed without violence.

    Only a few tiny nations like Cuba and North Korea still pretend to be communist tho they do not meet the definition of genuine socialism, which is when labor runs the show, not the state.

    Marx said that when communism arrived, the state would wither away.

    China is not communist tho it bears that name just as North Korea is not democratic tho it calls itself the Democratic Republic of NK. You are repeating obsolete propaganda points. Don’t waste our time; we need fresh perspectives the recognize the new realities.

  10. I notice that there are a few posts here that display a lack of understanding regarding the nature and importance of the right to property and the right to freely associate. Consider this case.

    A black woman, who happens to own a thriving coffee shop, is brutally attacked by a group of skinheads. While she recovers physically, she now suffers severe panic attacks at the sight of white males. In order to be able to continue running her business, she bars white men from the establishment. Now, should government swoop in and punish her for violating civil rights laws, as has been done to bakers and florists with perfectly legitimate religious objections, or would it be more sensible to get our coffee elsewhere? After all, this is supposed to be a free country with a free market. As a white male, I can go down the street to another business, or even open my own shop across the street if I wish; the free market will decide the issue.

    Yes, I’ve set up a straw man. I did so not to prove anything, but to illustrate the problems that civil rights law, or perhaps the way the courts are applying it, have created for us. If the state can compel us to enter into relationships, perform services, or utilize personal skills and knowledge in ways that we would otherwise decline, for whatever reason, then we don’t own our businesses, we don’t own our skills, we don’t even own ourselves. The state does, and it will eventually claim the authority to do whatever it wishes with us.

    A free society, by definition, is not fair or safe, and it is often fractious and ugly. When I consider the alternative, a fine example of which would be North Korea, I am happy to put up with those failings. However, it must also be accepted that any right can be abused, even the right to property, specifically in the case of monopolies created when the largest competitors in a given market collude to prevent free competition. The present unique case is particularly egregious and dangerous. We have a cabal of CEO’s pooling their economic power and political influence to anoint themselves as the world’s thought police. It is the very definition of fascism, and government intervention to protect the rights of the citizens is justified.

    A legal solution has been available for decades. It’s time to dust off the Sherman Anti Trust Act, and apply it as the authors intended. Break up this cabal, before it shatters the nation. Write your reps.

    • Racism, slavery, persecution, lynchings, and the bias of the housing and loan markets and the criminal justice system are not fantasies or straw men but the facts of history on which our view racial injustice must be based

      It is ironic that the posters here defending the right of owners to discriminate are also whining about private bisinesses like Google, Facebook Twitter, etc purging discriminating. Double standard, folks! At the very least, be consistent.

      It is the law of the land that businesses that rely on public funding (for infrastructure) and are open to the public are prohibited from discrimination based on gender, background, etc. That law applies equally to Facebook or the local hotel. IF private companies can discriminate, there is no cause to complain if Facebook censors….property rights;!

      The legal position is that discrimination based on inherent qualities (color of skin, gender, etc) are inherently unfair and cannot be exercised when the platform is a public accomodation. this applies to Twitter, etc but censoring ideas, hate speech, etc ,may or may not be wrong but it is not a violation of the law, for our ideas are learned and changable and hate speech is the enemy of a free society in which freedom of speech is an inviolable right. Any speech which destroys the rights of others, such as libel, incitements to violence, and hate speech should be banned in order to protect free speech as the countries in Europe which learned this lesson with the hate speech of the fascists, leading to genocide, which do not allow Nazi symbolism in public or public hate speech. In the privacy of your own space, you can be as ugly as you wish.

      • I agree, private businesses do have the right to discriminate! The exception being when the biggest players collude to create monoplies, supressing healthy competion and the market of ideas. I remind you again, this issue is addressed by the Sherman Act.

        As to your first paragraph, well, I’ve looked at your other posts here. Your leftist ‘solutions’ have been tried, and, without exception, when allowed to run their course unopposed have always ended in an orgy of horror and ruin. I need not argue the point, as history has already done it for me. The Nazis; some 9,000,000 murdered, 6,000,000 of them Jewish. Most of Europe in ruins. Stalin; roughly 22,000,000 Russians dead, many of starvation, at the hands of government. 60,000,000 Chinese thanks to Mau’s cultural revolution. Pol Pot’s killing fields. The current horror show in North Korea, and China’s more subtle ongoing efforts to erase the individual, not to mention the massive corruption that has destroyed and poisoned China’s land and rivers. I could go on, but I think these examples are more than sufficient.

        Thanks, but no thanks. I will stick with the imperfect, but vastly more honest and effective, solutions offered by the founders’ ideas of liberty, the free market, and traditional Judeo-Christian values.

  11. highlanderjuan | August 21, 2017 at 8:49 am | Reply

    It seems that the subject of zionism and Talmud Judaism cannot be discussed on this forum.

    Free speech? I don’t think so.

  12. and what happens when they shut down Bitcoin? …with the same excuse.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.