NEW COLUMN: Justice Thomas’ Solution to Big Tech’s Social And Financial Excommunication

Argument, Economy, Individual Rights, Technology, The State

NEW COLUMN IS “Justice Thomas’ Solution to Big Tech’s Social And Financial Excommunication.

The column is currently on WND.COM, The Unz Review, Townhall.com, The New American and CNSNews.com.

The column is Part 2 of a 3-part series. Read Part 1, “Big Tech’s Financial Terrorism And Social Excommunication.”

An excerpt:

Fox News personality Tucker Carlson has vowed to stay chipper. This is not sufficient a solution from so powerful a persona as Mr. Carlson.

The requisite and fitting noblesse oblige comes from Justice Clarence Thomas.

As one of the few public intellectuals to grasp the gravity of social and financial excommunication by Deep Tech (to denote Big Tech’s enmeshment with The State), and for proposing a way to prohibit wicked social and financial ouster of innocents—Justice Thomas is my hero.

To blabber on about simply finding alternative outlets to Amazon, Facebook, Twitter, Google, Apple, PayPal and other banking facilities is asinine verging on the criminal. Coming from political representatives, such advice ought to guarantee loss of face, even political expulsion.

The ordinary guy or girl (check) is told to go up against economic and political entities whose revenues exceed the GDP of quite a number of G20 nations combined.

“It changes nothing that these platforms are not the sole means for distributing speech or information,” inveighs Justice Thomas:

“A person could always choose to avoid the toll bridge or train and instead swim the Charles River or hike the Oregon Trail. But in assessing whether a company exercises substantial market power, what matters is whether the alternatives are comparable. For many of today’s digital platforms, nothing is.”

I’d go further. It would hardly be hyperbole, in driving home Justice Thomas’s ingenious point, to put it thus:

With respect to financial de-platforming, barring someone from PayPal is like prohibiting a passenger from crossing the English Channel by high-speed train, via ferry and by means of 90 percent of airplanes.

“Sure, some options remain for you to explore, you hapless loser. Go to it!” …

… READ THE REST on WND.COM, The Unz Review, Townhall.com, The New American and CNSNews.com.

Next Week: Part 3, “Mercer & Mystery Man’s Big-Tech Solutions.”


 

UPDATED II (10/11): NEW PODCAST: The Murky, Meandering Douglas Murray, Darling of Conservatism Inc, Leading Us Nowhere

Argument, Celebrity, Conservatism, Critique, Europe, Nationalism, Neoconservatism

NEW ON PODCAST: “The Murky, Meandering Douglas Murray, Darling of Conservatism Inc, Leading Us Nowhere”:

https://tinyurl.com/4znm4wbz

Hard Truth examines the wishy-washy work of anti-Trump, pro-censorship softie Douglas Murray, darling of Conservatism Inc, and finds there is not much there. Little Lord Fauntleroy is intellectually naked.

The Murky, Meandering Douglas Murray, Darling of Conservatism Inc, Leading Us Nowhere” is on YouTube, too.  https://youtu.be/BkeI-azpd1c

 

Murray has his fan boys. They refuse to address our substantive arguments, but, rather, engage in ad hominen (psychologizing about our motivation is a form of ad hominem). It used to be that critics (like David and I) were free to engage in critique. Now, if one does it, fan boys complain. Refute our arguments, don’t complain about them.

UPDATE II (8/13): Check out the noisy letter exchanges for this YouTube. My replies:

In reply to more ad hominem, jealousy:

How do you explain, then, the praise David and I offered for Mark Steyn who, unlike Murray, is intellectually substantial. Why not address our substantive arguments, rather than engage in ad hominen (psychologizing about our motivation is a form of ad hominem). It used to be that critics engaged in critique. Now if one does it, fan boys complain. Refute our arguments, don’t complain about them.

To the “Murray is fighting our fight” nonsense:

On my side of the pond, Katie Hopkins and Trump are considered hardcore, effective conservatives. Tellingly, Douglas Murray HATES THEM. He says so! If anything, he’s an ineffectual effete who waters down The Struggle. How does that help us? (He’s a neoconservative; wrote a book about how great that philosophical blight is.) David and myself have done a public service. But nobody likes hard truth; people prefer being fans of the latest popular TV ponce.

To the, “Oh, you just don’t like the lovely boy” argument:

Wrong. Murray’s actions and empty words are what cause disdain. Our arguments were clear. Clear examples were read out from Murray’s own text. Address those. He intimates, for example, that he’s happy that highly effective conservatives have been banned (N. Fuentes and K. Hopkins). He never once shows, moreover, a feel for unfettered free speech. On my side of the pond, you are no conservative without that understanding. In a post I penned about him, Murray fortifies his lack of strong opposition to Tech censorship by saying NOT that he abhors Big Tech’s tyranny, but, to quote his vague dissembling, “Big Tech are not up to the task.” The premise of that idiotic quip is that there is a censor out there that IS UP TO THE TASK. Wrong. I’m debating with you in good faith. rise to that challenge and do the same.

UPDATE II (10/11/021):

Dissidents had been fighting authoritarianism when Douglas Murray was still in short pants. Wishy-washy and anti-Trump, Murray, who penned a book FOR Neoconservatism and has been establishment Con. Inc. forever, had, on October 8, condemned the Alt Right on Tucker Carlson Tonight.

Rudderless Rotter Ben Shapiro Turns The Screws On Jan 6 Political Prisoners

Argument, Celebrity, Conservatism, Criminal Injustice, Morality, Neoconservatism

He’s an intellectual lightweight who makes Douglas Murray—another philosophically breezy fellow—sound like Russell Kirk. But Ben Shapiro is taken seriously by the conservative establishment, primarily because he emits banalities really, really fast. That’s all there is to it.

The patina of smart in Murray’s case is posh English and fabulous oratory. However, you can wait until the cows come home for either to zero in on a foundational problem (like anti-whiteness) or disgorge an original thought. That isn’t happening.

And, anti-Trumper Ben-Shapiro wants January 6 rioters to rot in hell. In the company of Bill Maher, the liberal host of an HBO show, “Real Time,” and a fan of Ben-Shap, the little rudderless rotter felt empowered to offer that:

“There were maybe 1,000 people. That is not making light of the evil of those people, who all will end up rotting in prison, as they should.”

Writes NewsPunch:

Rather than raise awareness for how Capitol protesters are being tortured, beaten, racially abused and locked in solitary confinement, Ben Shapiro chose to denounce them as “evil,” and declare they should “all” rot in prison for as little as trespassing. … How could anyone not realize this bought-and-paid-for shill is controlled opposition?

Apparently Ben-Shap is trained in the law. If you were choosing a lawyer, would you choose a statist who has no feel for due process? Due process of the law is certainly being flouted for the Jan 6 political prisoners.

Ben-Shap had gone after Michelle Malkin as well. I have an entire dossier of Ben Shapiro’s antics.

You might want to apprise yourself of the fact that Candace Owens, a similar sort of fast-talking production sans gravitas, broadcasts from the Daily Caller, Ben-Shap’s site.

 

UPDATED (8/8/021): ‘American Children Came Top At Thinking They Were Good At Math, But Bottom At Math’

America, Canada, Education, Kids, Pop-Culture, Psychology & Pop-Psychology

On average, Canadian schools, primary and secondary, are better than American schools. When we arrived in Canada from Cape Town, South Africa (in the good old days of high standards), my daughter had to be bumped up two years. Had we emigrated straight to the USA, it would have been three years, easily. A 12-year old South African would have been in class with 15 year-old Americans.

A US-based correspondent for The Economist confirms that, “After two years of school in England, our six-year-old was so far ahead of his American peers that he had to be bumped up a year, where he was also ahead.” And his child was in a “good” American school!

In fact, as our author notes, “At 15, children in Massachusetts, where education standards are higher than in most states, are so far behind their counterparts in Shanghai at math that it would take them more than two years of regular education to catch up.” UPDATE: (8/9/021): This last fact is enormously telling. Our best schools are un-competitive with the best in the world. 

He writes,

At the heart of the problem is an educational ethos that prizes building self-esteem over academic attainment. This is based on a theory that self-confidence leads to all manner of other virtues, including academic achievement, because children who feel good about themselves will love learning – right? Not entirely.

American children came top at thinking they were good at maths, but bottom at maths.

I covered the self-esteem cult for kids as far back as the year 2000, when I had reviewed the book of a brilliant Canadian professor by the name of Marilyn Bowman.

In a 1997 monograph, Bowman forewarned that, while “every kind of social problem is analyzed as the outgrowth of low self esteem,” and while “treatment programs to teach people how to love themselves are put forward as the means of raising self-esteem,” not only is “the relationship between emotion and well being not robust, causal or meaningful,” but, on the contrary, there is a dark side to self-esteem. “The prototype aggressor,” explains Bowman, “is a man whose self-appraisal is unrealistically positive.”

American kids have dangerously elevated self-esteems. Drumming up feel-good ignorance can be risky business.

Concludes the Economist in 2016:

American children came top at thinking they were good at maths, but bottom at maths. For Korean children, the inverse was true: they considered themselves poorer at maths than the children of any other country, but were the best. The OECD study, similarly, found that American children believe they are good at maths and, indeed, are adept at very simple sums; but give them something halfway tricky and they struggle.

This is perverse. The self-esteem movement is drenched in the language of mutual respect; yet encouraging in children an inflated idea of their accomplishments is not respectful at all. It is delusional.

READING:

New York Times:

On the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) two-thirds of American children were not proficient readers.

The most recent PISA test was given in 2018 to 600,000 15-year-olds in 79 education systems around the world, and included both public and private school students. In the United States, a demographically representative sample of 4,800 students from 215 schools took the test, which is given every three years.

Although math and science were also tested, about half of the questions were devoted to reading, the focus of the 2018 exam. Students were asked to determine when written evidence supported a particular claim and to distinguish between fact and opinion, among other tasks.

The top performers in reading were four provinces of China — Beijing, Shanghai, Jiangsu and Zhejiang. Also outperforming the United States were Singapore, Macau, Hong Kong, Estonia, Canada, Finland and Ireland. The United Kingdom, Japan and Australia performed similarly to the United States.