No silly, it’s “password“. Now try again.

To the surprise of absolutely no one, there was no collusion between the Russians and the Trump administration to win Trump the 2016 presidential race. This was the conclusion that Special Counsel Robert Mueller has arrived at after having spent two years and $30 million taxpayer dollars at the insistence of Democrats.

Wow, $30 million dollars? There have been times in the last couple years that I’ve been eating macaroni and cheese to get by, and wouldn’t have minded just a few dollars to go out and buy a hamburger. And all this money was wasted in an effort to give credence to a blasted fantasy?

Now that one conspiracy theory is debunked, a set of fresh new ones are likely to emerge, such as Mueller possibly being paid off. I doubt I was the first to call it, but by now we’re familiar with how the shills think.

We all know that the reason why the Trump-Russia conspiracy theory came to be was because it was the best that the left could come up with after the DNC’s email server was hacked, and oodles of their emails were circulated, including ones showing that they screwed over Bernie Sanders to favor Hillary Clinton, bypassing the will of voters from their own party. So they blamed the Russians, and claimed that they hacked their emails and were in league with the Trump campaign.

To say that the DNC’s emails were hacked is pretty generous. If one could have called it a hack-job, it would have been one of the simplest hack-jobs in history. All that happened was someone guessed their password. That’s it. A grade-schooler could have pulled that off.

password

What you just read in that blockquote was the DNC’s password for their emails. I kid you not. When I say “A grade-schooler could have pulled that off”, I wasn’t kidding. They invented the Trump-Russia conspiracy theory in an attempt to hide just how dim they are with cybersecurity.

I don’t know what the code for Hillary Clinton’s briefcase might be, but I suspect it’s 1-2-3-4-5.

So, what did we learn? For one thing, liars don’t prosper in the long run. Also, don’t set your password as “password”, especially if you’re hiding evidence of a conspiracy to subvert the will of the American electorate.

Twitter is being sued by Devin Nunes over the platform’s anti-conservative bias, and the platform’s failure to moderate content that impersonates his mother, and his cow.

If you were to read this story from traditional media outlets, you’d have to read between the lines of their scathing bias, which wouldn’t be much of anything new if you are among those that still pays attention to them. And, naturally, they’re focusing more on the false accounts that defame him, considering that this gives them opportunity to pass along the tweets that ridicule him, as Daily Mail is doing.

But if you’re up for some old-fashioned media not giving anyone to the right of Karl Marx a chance, check out what Mashable has to say about it. The following quotation in particular caught my eye:

“Sure, maybe his feelings are really hurt, but given the fact that Trump and others have brought up strengthening libel laws multiple times — the old “you can’t take what you dish out” syndrome — it could be setting up more nefarious actions to come.”

Yeah, “nefarious actions” like making sure that the corporate media isn’t getting away with libel, which it committed against the “MAGA kids” who were falsely branded as a hate mob.

I’ve had a number of social media accounts in the past. From what I remember, impersonating someone else and posting defamatory content was against the terms of service of most of them. I know that it’s grounds for a civil case, which leads us to the story being discussed, today.

As for whether there is an anti-conservative bias in social media and the tech industry, there’s pretty much no question that there is. Shadow-banning has been a weapon of choice to ensure that conservative voices aren’t heard. If you haven’t heard of shadow-banning, that’s when a person is allowed to post, but far fewer people see the poster’s content. It’s a way to silence someone without them knowing what’s going on. It’s one of the expressions of the left-wing establishment’s control over social media.

If you’re wondering what it’s like to be a conservative voice in social media, imagine that you’re playing a game of chess against a child. Imagine that in this game of chess, you’re not allowed to move your pieces to the other side of the board. Not only that, you’re not allowed to capture the opponent’s pieces. Worse yet, the child gets to change the rules of the game while the game is in progress. More disturbing still, the child is convinced that you’re a hateful, evil person who deserves to lose for disagreeing with them about anything.

You may have wisdom and know how the game is played, but the child owns the board and can set things up so that you don’t stand a chance.

One point of view on the matter is that Twitter is a private company, and if they wanted to, they could ban conservatives altogether. Whether that’s the case or not, I would expect an American-run company to conduct itself in a manner consistent with American values, including the principles of protecting free expression on a platform conductive to the free and open exchange of ideas.

In any case, I think the rest of us can appreciate that liberals are making this about an attempt to regulate social media, and that they were finally made to admit that regulating something would be a bad idea.

If you’ve been compared to Adolf Hitler or called a Nazi at some point, you’re pretty far from alone. The first time I was compared to Hitler, it wasn’t while discussing politics in an online forum, it was in an IRL chat about video games.

People seem eager to compare those that they disagree with to either Hitler or the Nazi party, especially the closer they are to losing an argument. But do these people really know what Adolf Hitler or the Nazis were really about?

It seems like all that most people really know about them was that they didn’t like Jews. But that in itself doesn’t make for a political ideology or philosophy, especially considering the Jews’ relative lack of influence. That’s like someone asking you what your religion is, and you answering “I’m not Zoroastrian”. There has to be more to what you believe in than you just saying that you’re not a member of a minority group.

The general consensus is that Hitler was right-wing. Those on the right usually answer that by saying that Hitler supported gun control, which isn’t a very right-wing stance to take.

But what was Hitler and his Nazi party really about?

People talk about Nazis all the time, but the topic of the Volkish party rarely comes up, even though the ideology of the Volkish was Nazism in its embryonic form. The Volkish were a folkish movement (Volkish literally means “folkish”) characterized by a rejection of urbanization and an embrace of rural and natural living. They were heavily conservationist and rejected industrialization. They were largely naturalistic in their thinking, and some of them embraced naturism, with not a few of them being nudists. Many of them were vegetarians; Hitler’s professed vegetarianism was a consequence of him belonging to the movement, though as vegans point out, Hitler didn’t really stay true to his vegetarian diet.

So yeah, the Volkish that Hitler belonged to were largely hippies. They were the most hellish hippies in history. Their beef with the Jews largely stems from the fact that Jews embraced technology, urbanization, and were meat-eaters. It also didn’t help that many of the conspiracy theories about the Jews that persist to this day were around back then, too.

The Volkish switched gears once they seized significant political control of Germany and became rebranded as the Nazi party. At that point, they seized control of the military-industrial complex and turned Germany into a socialist state.

Don’t believe me? “Nazi” is shorthand for “National Socialist German Worker’s Party”.

Next time you try to malign someone by comparing them to a maniacal dictator, check to make sure that you yourself do not ideologically align with the very same dictator.

The smiling kid who may very well take down a corrupt media.

In one of the more refreshing recent news developments, one of the “MAGA kids” students is suing CNN for defamation after CNN had carelessly portrayed them as a hate mob.

As you may recall, back in January, the corporate news outlets have covered a story about a group of kids in a confrontation with a native American group, portraying them as hatefully throwing taunts at an elderly man. Since then, mainstream news outlets have backpedaled after full video of the confrontation had been posted online, which shows that the only hateful rhetoric thrown out came from “another organization”, which the corporate media seems to be too terrified to acknowledge by name.

The Black Hebrew Israelites.

As a result of CNN’s careless coverage, the Covington students that pretty much did nothing but stand there smiling have been repeatedly threatened by those naive enough to take the corporate media at face value. Therefore, the student at the center of the controversy has decided to sue CNN for $275 million for defamation.

There’s a lesson that the corporate mainstream information media needs to learn, and that’s that there are repercussions for carelessly handling information, even if you feel justified in how you’re portraying someone by reason of the narrative that you prefer to peddle. If people like the MAGA kids who have been victimized by the corporate media’s irresponsibility with their informational positions make it expensive for them to libel, that just may be what it takes for them to feel discouraged from doing so.

While we’re on the topic, there’s something that has had me concerned, and this is an opportunity to bring it up. It seems as though tech companies have an interest in making sure that the corporate media’s biggest mistakes don’t receive too much attention.

The reason why I bring this up is because I voiced my opinion on the MAGA kids incident back in January. Since posting my article, I’ve noticed a suspicious trend in the traffic to this site:

What’s pictured is this site’s traffic. As you could see, prior to the posting of the article, the traffic to this page was widely varied, and there have been days when the traffic was substantially higher than usual. But in the days after it was published, the traffic to this site was steady, and traffic seemed to approach a sort of “cap”.

Noticing this, I decided to perform an experiment by taking the article off this site by reverting it to draft. Afterwards, the traffic to this site returned.

Something seems suspicious.

It’s not news that tech companies have long had a left-wing bias, but I suspect that search engines are now silently throttling traffic to pages that refuse to toe the line for the left wing narrative. This has apparently been going on for a long time. Back in 2017, I made an article criticizing the SJW movement for comparing itself to the Resistance from the Star Wars films.

As noted in an edit to the article itself, I performed searches for the article to try to find it on Google, but had difficulty in finding it. A Bing search showed the article as the first result of my first attempt at finding it. Today, a DuckDuckGo search similarly brought the page right up as the first result of my first attempt at finding it.

It would seem like something suspicious is going on with Google.

Today, the librarians of the digital age don’t have to go as far as to burn books, all it takes to silence someone is to omit them from search results. Now that Google has been caught with their hand in the cookie jar, why trust them for informational purposes? It’s prime time to consider setting an alternative search engine as your default.

I’m interested in seeing whether mainstream news outlets change the way they handle information in the face of a public willing to fight back by making it expensive for them to commit libel. Perhaps the best way to stop the tide of defamation from news outlets is to ensure that they can’t afford it.

As for what we the public can do about tech companies that are making apparent attempts to censor us, perhaps the best thing we can do for the time being is use the services of their competitors.