A small tool to view real-world ActivityPub objects as JSON! Enter a URL
or username from Mastodon or a similar service below, and we'll send a
request with
the right
Accept
header
to the server to view the underlying object.
{
"@context": "https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams",
"type": "OrderedCollectionPage",
"orderedItems": [
{
"type": "Create",
"actor": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/458672240557305856",
"object": {
"type": "Note",
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/458672240557305856/entities/urn:activity:876662912787914752",
"attributedTo": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/458672240557305856",
"content": "<a href=\"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvK-pNda__k\" target=\"_blank\">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvK-pNda__k</a><br />",
"to": [
"https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public"
],
"cc": [
"https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/458672240557305856/followers"
],
"tag": [],
"url": "https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/876662912787914752",
"published": "2018-08-16T03:05:26+00:00",
"source": {
"content": "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvK-pNda__k\n",
"mediaType": "text/plain"
}
},
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/458672240557305856/entities/urn:activity:876662912787914752/activity"
},
{
"type": "Create",
"actor": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/458672240557305856",
"object": {
"type": "Note",
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/458672240557305856/entities/urn:activity:876659774427975680",
"attributedTo": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/458672240557305856",
"content": "<a href=\"https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/876659774427975680\" target=\"_blank\">https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/876659774427975680</a>",
"to": [
"https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public"
],
"cc": [
"https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/458672240557305856/followers"
],
"tag": [],
"url": "https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/876659774427975680",
"published": "2018-08-16T02:52:57+00:00",
"source": {
"content": "https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/876659774427975680",
"mediaType": "text/plain"
}
},
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/458672240557305856/entities/urn:activity:876659774427975680/activity"
},
{
"type": "Create",
"actor": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/458672240557305856",
"object": {
"type": "Note",
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/458672240557305856/entities/urn:activity:876656001573167104",
"attributedTo": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/458672240557305856",
"content": "Today I was reading the twitter feed of Anti-Gnostic, who is an intelligent and measured mainstay of the dissident right, and also a far more fair and reasonable interlocutor than any leftist deserves. In this instance I noticed he responded to a tweet from a Harvard Sociology professor, whose feed was encrusted with the same anti-Trump hysterics as any highly intelligent Hollywood starlet. The professor was opining on the allegedly enduring appeal of ethno-nationalism to white Americans, which he presumably views as abhorrent as long as they’re white. In the course of which, AG offered the blandly indisputable observation that…<br /><br />Ethno-nationalism has broad appeal among practically all ethnicities.<br />Though being indisputable doesn’t mean a liberal won’t dispute it. Particularly when disputing is in service to a useful narrative. So the professor responded…<br /><br />That’s not the case. Much lower prevalence among non-whites in white-majority countries (not surprisingly).<br /><br />Ethno-nationalism is unsurprisingly much lower among non-whites? For someone who lives in a matrix of men rather than models, that was a surprising assertion indeed. Because if the professor is actually eating his baloney, it is a remarkable concession of failure. Society, that is to say wholly liberalized society, has cooked white racial solidarity in a crock-pot for generations. The anti-racial/nationalist apparatus could fairly be considered the country’s most carefully cultivated industry. From a child’s first reception at their government school to an adult’s corporate retirement, the indoctrination is unrelenting, and punishment for deviation unforgiving. A white person can not even express a concern for his people’s mere continued presence without vain and boisterous clucking followed typically by imminent unemployment. Despite the ceaseless investment and maintenance in this vast machinery, we are now advised it has not nearly the effect we had all feared. What a relief.<br /><br />And that’s not the only good news. Non-whites also are apparently inoculated against the best efforts of prog professors. As whites are meticulously shorn of their heritage and identity, non-whites have theirs nurtured as if they were artisanal tulip bulbs. Movies, music, media, and academia collude in a great copulation to birth both a sense of superior separateness in non-whites as well as a mindset of entitlement and resentment toward the people whose taxes keep them complaining obesely. Yet all this effort is wasted as we are told ethno-nationalism is of much lower prevalence in this cohort. You really just can’t find any black people interested in their blackness.<br /><br />All of which represents such risible bullshit that one can only speculate as to what conceivable data they tortured on the rack to substantiate it. We may actually be able to do more than speculate. This research may be the source of his nationalist assertions. The primary question of which to me was: how does one define (malign) nationalism so as to make racially deracinated whites more of it? The answer is embarrassing. What follows is the foundational survey.<br /><br />How close do you feel to . . . America ? [...]<br /><br /><br />So if fondly disposed toward America, you are an “ardent” nationalist (as explained on page 10/35). Conversely, if one dislikes America very much, as for instance with the black panthers, that person is completely devoid of ethno-nationalist sentiment. Similarly, Netanyahu would certainly be an ardent nationalist in Tel Aviv, but quite likely an anti-nationalist in Budapest—his entire philosophy and persona shifting with the topography. Because how do you feel about Israel? is a different question than how do you feel about Hungary?<br /><br />The premise being that you can’t be a nationalist if you want to replace someone else’s nation (that you don’t like) with your own (that you do). And thus intensely tribal Arab Muslims in Marseille who are completely indifferent to French achievements are thus not intensely tribal at all. The fact that they don’t care whether a word of French is ever spoken in that country again makes this clear. Obviously the Mongol Khans would have also scored very low on Nationalism Measures when queried in foreign bivouacs.<br /><br />Shockingly to Harvard faculty, there are very few nationalists for another man’s nation. In any event, this Ivy League lecturer subsequently concluded that whites (particularly whites from the South, whom Harvard has proven on multiple occasions are the worst whites of all) are the most nationalist, with Republicans obviously more egregious offenders than democrats. Hispanics were the next most nationalist/liked America racial group, followed by blacks, and then “others,” who do not care for America at all except for where they beg to live. Thus we may be relieved to know they have no competing tribal inclinations whatsoever.<br /><br />I hope this lesson has been edifying. As our motto says here at Harvard: Veritas.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><a href=\"https://kakistocracyblog.wordpress.com/2018/08/10/veritas-doesnt-wear-crimson/\" target=\"_blank\">https://kakistocracyblog.wordpress.com/2018/08/10/veritas-doesnt-wear-crimson/</a><br />",
"to": [
"https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public"
],
"cc": [
"https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/458672240557305856/followers"
],
"tag": [],
"url": "https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/876656001573167104",
"published": "2018-08-16T02:37:58+00:00",
"source": {
"content": "Today I was reading the twitter feed of Anti-Gnostic, who is an intelligent and measured mainstay of the dissident right, and also a far more fair and reasonable interlocutor than any leftist deserves. In this instance I noticed he responded to a tweet from a Harvard Sociology professor, whose feed was encrusted with the same anti-Trump hysterics as any highly intelligent Hollywood starlet. The professor was opining on the allegedly enduring appeal of ethno-nationalism to white Americans, which he presumably views as abhorrent as long as they’re white. In the course of which, AG offered the blandly indisputable observation that…\n\nEthno-nationalism has broad appeal among practically all ethnicities.\nThough being indisputable doesn’t mean a liberal won’t dispute it. Particularly when disputing is in service to a useful narrative. So the professor responded…\n\nThat’s not the case. Much lower prevalence among non-whites in white-majority countries (not surprisingly).\n\nEthno-nationalism is unsurprisingly much lower among non-whites? For someone who lives in a matrix of men rather than models, that was a surprising assertion indeed. Because if the professor is actually eating his baloney, it is a remarkable concession of failure. Society, that is to say wholly liberalized society, has cooked white racial solidarity in a crock-pot for generations. The anti-racial/nationalist apparatus could fairly be considered the country’s most carefully cultivated industry. From a child’s first reception at their government school to an adult’s corporate retirement, the indoctrination is unrelenting, and punishment for deviation unforgiving. A white person can not even express a concern for his people’s mere continued presence without vain and boisterous clucking followed typically by imminent unemployment. Despite the ceaseless investment and maintenance in this vast machinery, we are now advised it has not nearly the effect we had all feared. What a relief.\n\nAnd that’s not the only good news. Non-whites also are apparently inoculated against the best efforts of prog professors. As whites are meticulously shorn of their heritage and identity, non-whites have theirs nurtured as if they were artisanal tulip bulbs. Movies, music, media, and academia collude in a great copulation to birth both a sense of superior separateness in non-whites as well as a mindset of entitlement and resentment toward the people whose taxes keep them complaining obesely. Yet all this effort is wasted as we are told ethno-nationalism is of much lower prevalence in this cohort. You really just can’t find any black people interested in their blackness.\n\nAll of which represents such risible bullshit that one can only speculate as to what conceivable data they tortured on the rack to substantiate it. We may actually be able to do more than speculate. This research may be the source of his nationalist assertions. The primary question of which to me was: how does one define (malign) nationalism so as to make racially deracinated whites more of it? The answer is embarrassing. What follows is the foundational survey.\n\nHow close do you feel to . . . America ? [...]\n\n\nSo if fondly disposed toward America, you are an “ardent” nationalist (as explained on page 10/35). Conversely, if one dislikes America very much, as for instance with the black panthers, that person is completely devoid of ethno-nationalist sentiment. Similarly, Netanyahu would certainly be an ardent nationalist in Tel Aviv, but quite likely an anti-nationalist in Budapest—his entire philosophy and persona shifting with the topography. Because how do you feel about Israel? is a different question than how do you feel about Hungary?\n\nThe premise being that you can’t be a nationalist if you want to replace someone else’s nation (that you don’t like) with your own (that you do). And thus intensely tribal Arab Muslims in Marseille who are completely indifferent to French achievements are thus not intensely tribal at all. The fact that they don’t care whether a word of French is ever spoken in that country again makes this clear. Obviously the Mongol Khans would have also scored very low on Nationalism Measures when queried in foreign bivouacs.\n\nShockingly to Harvard faculty, there are very few nationalists for another man’s nation. In any event, this Ivy League lecturer subsequently concluded that whites (particularly whites from the South, whom Harvard has proven on multiple occasions are the worst whites of all) are the most nationalist, with Republicans obviously more egregious offenders than democrats. Hispanics were the next most nationalist/liked America racial group, followed by blacks, and then “others,” who do not care for America at all except for where they beg to live. Thus we may be relieved to know they have no competing tribal inclinations whatsoever.\n\nI hope this lesson has been edifying. As our motto says here at Harvard: Veritas.\n\n\n\n\n\n\nhttps://kakistocracyblog.wordpress.com/2018/08/10/veritas-doesnt-wear-crimson/\n",
"mediaType": "text/plain"
}
},
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/458672240557305856/entities/urn:activity:876656001573167104/activity"
},
{
"type": "Create",
"actor": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/458672240557305856",
"object": {
"type": "Note",
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/458672240557305856/entities/urn:activity:876653292647706624",
"attributedTo": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/458672240557305856",
"content": " The left controls the monopolies, and monopolies aren’t in the business of platforming their competition. Ecumenical platitudes about non-existent principles are the things one utters while building a military infrastructure. In contrast, HATE is what one says when that infrastructure is deemed secure enough to form a foundation of attack. Hate being a passive recipient state in conservatives. I’m referring largely to today’s synchronized defenestration of the Alex Jones media presence. Now to be honest I’ve watched precisely one Jones video. It struck me as a sort of cantankerous civic nationalism, which equals Hate since the left doesn’t care for that at all. <br />That is to say, we only know they have it after the left hates them. Of course hate is also an emotion native to all human beings, which explains why liberals claim to be devoid of it. You can see just how devoid below.<br /><br />Though the fact that Jones became Hate through being hated simultaneously across all Progtech platforms is the sort of coincidence that should attract the attention of Jeff Sessions, if he could be roused from slumber. For if AG Sessions were to man his post for perhaps 20 minutes per day, he’d find little better use of his precious waking hours than to go full Sherman Act on the hostile tech oligarchs.<br /><br /><br />Anti-trust is a powerful tool simply sitting at this administration’s feet. And even better, it is a tool that can be wielded with an extremely high-yield cutting arc. In practically any other circumstance one could identify good people harmed by decisive government intrusion. Yet in this case, the field is all bogeys. Twitter, Amazon, Facebook, Google, and Apple would look best looking nothing like they do. Imagine how much less pernicious each of these companies would be in a scenario where shareholders demanded growth and performance from their small corporate shards rather than posturing and political bans from behind today’s deep market moats.<br /><br />As some of you may have astutely noted, I am not a particular fan of our legislative judiciary. Though I did appreciate this explanation of the Sherman Act from the Supreme Court.<br /><br />The purpose of the Sherman Act is not to protect businesses from the working of the market; it is to protect the public from the failure of the market. The law directs itself not against conduct which is competitive, even severely so, but against conduct which unfairly tends to destroy competition itself.<br /><br />What we have here is a market failure. Because the market these malign behemoths make is in speech. And their conduct doesn’t just tend to destroy competition in that market, it does so frenetically. If only John D. Rockefeller had thought to scream “We did it to fight petroleum-based Hate!” at Standard Oil’s Anti-Trust trial. But the world was less stupid then, alas, and so the gambit lied dormant until today.<br /><br />But that doesn’t mean Trump need be dazzled by such idiotic incantations. Any moron can cite Hate as a defense for their attacks. And many morons do. Though that’s insufficient for non-morons to grant the position legitimacy. Here’s a novel principle for respectable conservatives: fight for your own side.<br /><br />In alignment with that principle, it’s time to stop babbling about “free enterprise” for the enterprises trying to bury you. A nation is not a monopolistic merchant syndicate. It just may have no greater enemy.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><a href=\"https://kakistocracyblog.wordpress.com/2018/08/06/sherman-is-ready/\" target=\"_blank\">https://kakistocracyblog.wordpress.com/2018/08/06/sherman-is-ready/</a><br />",
"to": [
"https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public"
],
"cc": [
"https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/458672240557305856/followers"
],
"tag": [],
"url": "https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/876653292647706624",
"published": "2018-08-16T02:27:12+00:00",
"source": {
"content": " The left controls the monopolies, and monopolies aren’t in the business of platforming their competition. Ecumenical platitudes about non-existent principles are the things one utters while building a military infrastructure. In contrast, HATE is what one says when that infrastructure is deemed secure enough to form a foundation of attack. Hate being a passive recipient state in conservatives. I’m referring largely to today’s synchronized defenestration of the Alex Jones media presence. Now to be honest I’ve watched precisely one Jones video. It struck me as a sort of cantankerous civic nationalism, which equals Hate since the left doesn’t care for that at all. \nThat is to say, we only know they have it after the left hates them. Of course hate is also an emotion native to all human beings, which explains why liberals claim to be devoid of it. You can see just how devoid below.\n\nThough the fact that Jones became Hate through being hated simultaneously across all Progtech platforms is the sort of coincidence that should attract the attention of Jeff Sessions, if he could be roused from slumber. For if AG Sessions were to man his post for perhaps 20 minutes per day, he’d find little better use of his precious waking hours than to go full Sherman Act on the hostile tech oligarchs.\n\n\nAnti-trust is a powerful tool simply sitting at this administration’s feet. And even better, it is a tool that can be wielded with an extremely high-yield cutting arc. In practically any other circumstance one could identify good people harmed by decisive government intrusion. Yet in this case, the field is all bogeys. Twitter, Amazon, Facebook, Google, and Apple would look best looking nothing like they do. Imagine how much less pernicious each of these companies would be in a scenario where shareholders demanded growth and performance from their small corporate shards rather than posturing and political bans from behind today’s deep market moats.\n\nAs some of you may have astutely noted, I am not a particular fan of our legislative judiciary. Though I did appreciate this explanation of the Sherman Act from the Supreme Court.\n\nThe purpose of the Sherman Act is not to protect businesses from the working of the market; it is to protect the public from the failure of the market. The law directs itself not against conduct which is competitive, even severely so, but against conduct which unfairly tends to destroy competition itself.\n\nWhat we have here is a market failure. Because the market these malign behemoths make is in speech. And their conduct doesn’t just tend to destroy competition in that market, it does so frenetically. If only John D. Rockefeller had thought to scream “We did it to fight petroleum-based Hate!” at Standard Oil’s Anti-Trust trial. But the world was less stupid then, alas, and so the gambit lied dormant until today.\n\nBut that doesn’t mean Trump need be dazzled by such idiotic incantations. Any moron can cite Hate as a defense for their attacks. And many morons do. Though that’s insufficient for non-morons to grant the position legitimacy. Here’s a novel principle for respectable conservatives: fight for your own side.\n\nIn alignment with that principle, it’s time to stop babbling about “free enterprise” for the enterprises trying to bury you. A nation is not a monopolistic merchant syndicate. It just may have no greater enemy.\n\n\n\n\nhttps://kakistocracyblog.wordpress.com/2018/08/06/sherman-is-ready/\n",
"mediaType": "text/plain"
}
},
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/458672240557305856/entities/urn:activity:876653292647706624/activity"
},
{
"type": "Create",
"actor": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/458672240557305856",
"object": {
"type": "Note",
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/458672240557305856/entities/urn:activity:876649735669288960",
"attributedTo": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/458672240557305856",
"content": "The High Finance which with the help of its running dogs, the Liberals, organises the systematic brain-dirtying of the Western voting masses and university students, and either appoints its own puppet politicians or exerts enormous pressure against the ‘unappointed’ ones. It is a vast power of hatred, destructiveness and megalomaniac ambition spreading among us, its victims, the seeds of despair, futility, disorientation and even acceptance. It is a new ‘religion’ (or perhaps a very ancient one); and the majority of us cannot fight it because we are weak in love and, owing to the censorship of other than Leftist views, even weaker in understanding. The result is that those few among us who can fight it and do fight it are instantly attacked, not even so much by the ‘Liberals’ themselves as by those of us who cannot and dare not fight it — by the Empty Men, the men of parrot mind and parrot conviction.<br /><br />They have only one desire, they must destroy all white resistance to their totalitarian regimes. They will not be deterred by votes, petitions, protest marches, or public appeals to their humanity. They have no humanity. The European people cannot comprehend that the liberals want their blood, because they have not thrown off the mind-forged shackles of liberalism. The whites who are appalled by the cruel treatment of Tommy Robinson and others like him are classical liberals. They believe in rationality, equality under the law, and the democratic process. Some of those classical liberals, such as Tucker Carlson, are very courageous in their outspoken defense of classic liberalism. But classical liberals, who are now called conservatives, do not understand the liberal dynamic. It is a continually evolving ideology. Evolving toward what? The liberals claim they are moving toward heaven on earth, but it is quite apparent, from a Christian perspective, that the liberals are heading for the deepest pit of hell. Will they be satisfied when they get there? Of course not, but they will have reached their final destination.<br /><br />The question that every white man should ask himself is, “Do I want to follow the liberals’ democratic process all the way to hell or do I want to fight back?” Currently the European people have steadfastly refused to step away from liberalism. No matter what the mad-dog liberals do, the conservatives respond with, “We must have faith in the democratic process, we must keep up the pressure on our elected officials, and slowly but surely we will win out.” When has faith in the democratic process ever resulted in anything good for white people?<br /><br />In the democratic era of our history we have seen total war, the war “to make the world safe for democracy,” and now, under the mantle of the democratic ideals of liberty, equality, and fraternity, we are witnessing the extermination of the white race. What has been the conservatives’ response to the attack on the white race? They tell us that we need more democracy! Instead of rejecting the devil and all his works, the conservatives bid us seek redemption from the devil. In the book of Revelations, Christ warns us, through St. John, that faith in Him cannot be blended with paganism, Judaism, or any other –ism. He, and He alone, is the beginning and the end. The blending of Christianity and democracy produces leaders such as Angela Merkel and Pope Francis the blasphemer, who are determined to attack God by destroying His image in man. When those two monsters of immorality meet to discuss “the problem of populism,” they are meeting to discuss how they can kill the last remaining remnants of white pietas, which is our only link to the living God.<br /><br />The devil wins when we accept his either/or: “Either you must be a mad-dog liberal or a classical liberal.” That is no choice at all, because either way we will be in the clutches of the devil. The classical liberals are quite different from true conservatives such as Edmund Burke and Anthony Jacob. Burke and Jacob wanted to conserve a particular people and their particular faith in a personal God. Burke and Jacob hated universals such as “the people” because they realized that such abstractions were used to destroy their own kith and kin in the name of an aggregate herd called “the people.” But the conservatives of the 20th century were quite willing to give up on their kith and kin and transfer their allegiance to a universal idea of mankind. They did this because they were and are Gnostics. All of life is an abstraction to the classical liberals. So long as you support the idea of Christianity, the idea of the family, and the idea of humanity, you will be on the right track. But a disembodied idea is nothing at all. It is mere air. The modern conservative thinks that once you vote or protest against an atrocity of the mad-dog liberals you have done your Gnostic duty. But it is not abstract ideas that are being tortured, raped, and murdered, it is individual white people, people who used to be called, in the non-Gnostic age of Europe, the conservatives’ kith and kin. There is something terribly wrong when we respond to the horrors inflicted on our people with democratic rationality. Men who love their own in Him and through Him do not – I repeat – they do not respond to the rape, torture, and murder of their people with a Thomistic-Buddhistic pacifism. They become Goths.<br /><br />Mad-dog liberals such as Angela Merkel and the German councilwoman openly tell their own people they will be replaced by colored heathens. They taunt white people, fully confident that white people will not act against them in retaliation. Some whites might protest Gnostically, through marches or petitions, but Gnostic protests can be dealt with quite easily. Would Angela Merkel or any of the mad-dog liberals throughout the West ever tell any non-white race of people they were planning to exterminate them? Of course not, they would be in fear of their lives. But white people have been carefully trained to consent to their own extermination. Why must they consent? That is the given, it is supposed to be self-evident: “We hold this truth to be self-evident, that all whites are evil — except those liberals who have transcended whiteness — and must be eradicated from the face of the earth.”<br /><br />The neo-pagans who blame Christianity for the decline of the white race are correct. But they are wrong when they fail to distinguish faith in Christ from the intellectual system called Christianity. The apostles’ hearts did not burn within them on the road to Emmaus because they encountered a Jewish Socrates who unfolded to them a philosophical system. Their hearts burned within them because they had encountered the living God. Our people, as a people, also encountered our Lord on the European road to Emmaus. We became one with the apostles, St. Paul, and Him.<br /><br />The classical liberals want to Socratize Christ: “He left us a good system.” But Christianity as a philosophy is no defense against mad-dog liberalism. The mad-dog liberals hate Christ and the white race. How can a tepid belief in rationality and fair play counter the demonic fury of the liberals? It can’t. The moderate philosophical Christianity of the classical liberals ultimately becomes the enabling system that keeps mad-dog liberalism alive and well, because it encourages white people to stay within the confines of liberalism. They are told ad nauseum that good, polite Europeans submit to the rule of law, even though their leaders have told them they are going to be lawfully exterminated. And they are told ad nauseum by their church men that Christianity and democracy are one and the same. Where does that leave white people? It leaves them in the lions’ den. But instead of placing their faith in the living God to keep them safe, the modern Europeans look to the liberals who threw them into the lions’ den, to somehow, if they petition, vote, march, and plead, let them out of the lions’ den.<br /><br />There are no white people left alive who have not grown up under the shadow of liberalism. Some of the oldest have known a few decades of classical liberalism, but every single white person alive today has been brought up to honor and respect the liberal faith. In church that means all whites must accept the blending of Christianity with the heathen faiths. Christ is not, we are told, the beginning and the end. He is the God who must give way to the heathen gods of color who are greater than Him. And in society adherence to the liberal faith means that the white race must give way to the black race, because the white race is evil. All revolutions succeed when the powers that be doubt their right to rule. The people who had seen a great light, the people who walked on water because they believed in the Son of God, lost their faith in Him and fled to the heathen gods of color and to rational, science-based systems for comfort. Now the liberals rule.<br /><br />The Europeans will come to their own again when they believe in their ancestral God, the God who enters human hearts, more than the liberals believe in their satanic faith. It is truly horrific to see what is happening to white people in what used to be called Christendom. And it is doubly sad and horrific to see white people respond to the liberals’ jihad with the Gnostic verbiage of liberalism. The Christian Europeans, our honored dead, speak to us from across the great divide and bid us fight. “We can’t fight,” is the modern Europeans’ response, “We can’t fight, because there is a huge chasm between our Europe and your Europe.” But then we hear our Savior’s voice: “The things which are impossible with men are possible with God.”<br /><br />Men who believe as the ancient European people believed do not permit their nations to become white slaughterhouses. Something within them, something called “that charity of honor” makes them rebel against the rule of the liberals. Until that something within becomes a burning passion in the hearts of the European people, the Tommy Robinsons, the Jonathan Fosters, and the entire white race will be offered up on the sacrificial alters of the liberals. The democratic process is, in all its essentials, the liberals’ satanic religious rite. <br /><br /><br /><br /><a href=\"https://cambriawillnotyield.wordpress.com/2018/08/11/democracy-the-white-mans-covenant-with-death/\" target=\"_blank\">https://cambriawillnotyield.wordpress.com/2018/08/11/democracy-the-white-mans-covenant-with-death/</a><br />",
"to": [
"https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public"
],
"cc": [
"https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/458672240557305856/followers"
],
"tag": [],
"url": "https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/876649735669288960",
"published": "2018-08-16T02:13:04+00:00",
"source": {
"content": "The High Finance which with the help of its running dogs, the Liberals, organises the systematic brain-dirtying of the Western voting masses and university students, and either appoints its own puppet politicians or exerts enormous pressure against the ‘unappointed’ ones. It is a vast power of hatred, destructiveness and megalomaniac ambition spreading among us, its victims, the seeds of despair, futility, disorientation and even acceptance. It is a new ‘religion’ (or perhaps a very ancient one); and the majority of us cannot fight it because we are weak in love and, owing to the censorship of other than Leftist views, even weaker in understanding. The result is that those few among us who can fight it and do fight it are instantly attacked, not even so much by the ‘Liberals’ themselves as by those of us who cannot and dare not fight it — by the Empty Men, the men of parrot mind and parrot conviction.\n\nThey have only one desire, they must destroy all white resistance to their totalitarian regimes. They will not be deterred by votes, petitions, protest marches, or public appeals to their humanity. They have no humanity. The European people cannot comprehend that the liberals want their blood, because they have not thrown off the mind-forged shackles of liberalism. The whites who are appalled by the cruel treatment of Tommy Robinson and others like him are classical liberals. They believe in rationality, equality under the law, and the democratic process. Some of those classical liberals, such as Tucker Carlson, are very courageous in their outspoken defense of classic liberalism. But classical liberals, who are now called conservatives, do not understand the liberal dynamic. It is a continually evolving ideology. Evolving toward what? The liberals claim they are moving toward heaven on earth, but it is quite apparent, from a Christian perspective, that the liberals are heading for the deepest pit of hell. Will they be satisfied when they get there? Of course not, but they will have reached their final destination.\n\nThe question that every white man should ask himself is, “Do I want to follow the liberals’ democratic process all the way to hell or do I want to fight back?” Currently the European people have steadfastly refused to step away from liberalism. No matter what the mad-dog liberals do, the conservatives respond with, “We must have faith in the democratic process, we must keep up the pressure on our elected officials, and slowly but surely we will win out.” When has faith in the democratic process ever resulted in anything good for white people?\n\nIn the democratic era of our history we have seen total war, the war “to make the world safe for democracy,” and now, under the mantle of the democratic ideals of liberty, equality, and fraternity, we are witnessing the extermination of the white race. What has been the conservatives’ response to the attack on the white race? They tell us that we need more democracy! Instead of rejecting the devil and all his works, the conservatives bid us seek redemption from the devil. In the book of Revelations, Christ warns us, through St. John, that faith in Him cannot be blended with paganism, Judaism, or any other –ism. He, and He alone, is the beginning and the end. The blending of Christianity and democracy produces leaders such as Angela Merkel and Pope Francis the blasphemer, who are determined to attack God by destroying His image in man. When those two monsters of immorality meet to discuss “the problem of populism,” they are meeting to discuss how they can kill the last remaining remnants of white pietas, which is our only link to the living God.\n\nThe devil wins when we accept his either/or: “Either you must be a mad-dog liberal or a classical liberal.” That is no choice at all, because either way we will be in the clutches of the devil. The classical liberals are quite different from true conservatives such as Edmund Burke and Anthony Jacob. Burke and Jacob wanted to conserve a particular people and their particular faith in a personal God. Burke and Jacob hated universals such as “the people” because they realized that such abstractions were used to destroy their own kith and kin in the name of an aggregate herd called “the people.” But the conservatives of the 20th century were quite willing to give up on their kith and kin and transfer their allegiance to a universal idea of mankind. They did this because they were and are Gnostics. All of life is an abstraction to the classical liberals. So long as you support the idea of Christianity, the idea of the family, and the idea of humanity, you will be on the right track. But a disembodied idea is nothing at all. It is mere air. The modern conservative thinks that once you vote or protest against an atrocity of the mad-dog liberals you have done your Gnostic duty. But it is not abstract ideas that are being tortured, raped, and murdered, it is individual white people, people who used to be called, in the non-Gnostic age of Europe, the conservatives’ kith and kin. There is something terribly wrong when we respond to the horrors inflicted on our people with democratic rationality. Men who love their own in Him and through Him do not – I repeat – they do not respond to the rape, torture, and murder of their people with a Thomistic-Buddhistic pacifism. They become Goths.\n\nMad-dog liberals such as Angela Merkel and the German councilwoman openly tell their own people they will be replaced by colored heathens. They taunt white people, fully confident that white people will not act against them in retaliation. Some whites might protest Gnostically, through marches or petitions, but Gnostic protests can be dealt with quite easily. Would Angela Merkel or any of the mad-dog liberals throughout the West ever tell any non-white race of people they were planning to exterminate them? Of course not, they would be in fear of their lives. But white people have been carefully trained to consent to their own extermination. Why must they consent? That is the given, it is supposed to be self-evident: “We hold this truth to be self-evident, that all whites are evil — except those liberals who have transcended whiteness — and must be eradicated from the face of the earth.”\n\nThe neo-pagans who blame Christianity for the decline of the white race are correct. But they are wrong when they fail to distinguish faith in Christ from the intellectual system called Christianity. The apostles’ hearts did not burn within them on the road to Emmaus because they encountered a Jewish Socrates who unfolded to them a philosophical system. Their hearts burned within them because they had encountered the living God. Our people, as a people, also encountered our Lord on the European road to Emmaus. We became one with the apostles, St. Paul, and Him.\n\nThe classical liberals want to Socratize Christ: “He left us a good system.” But Christianity as a philosophy is no defense against mad-dog liberalism. The mad-dog liberals hate Christ and the white race. How can a tepid belief in rationality and fair play counter the demonic fury of the liberals? It can’t. The moderate philosophical Christianity of the classical liberals ultimately becomes the enabling system that keeps mad-dog liberalism alive and well, because it encourages white people to stay within the confines of liberalism. They are told ad nauseum that good, polite Europeans submit to the rule of law, even though their leaders have told them they are going to be lawfully exterminated. And they are told ad nauseum by their church men that Christianity and democracy are one and the same. Where does that leave white people? It leaves them in the lions’ den. But instead of placing their faith in the living God to keep them safe, the modern Europeans look to the liberals who threw them into the lions’ den, to somehow, if they petition, vote, march, and plead, let them out of the lions’ den.\n\nThere are no white people left alive who have not grown up under the shadow of liberalism. Some of the oldest have known a few decades of classical liberalism, but every single white person alive today has been brought up to honor and respect the liberal faith. In church that means all whites must accept the blending of Christianity with the heathen faiths. Christ is not, we are told, the beginning and the end. He is the God who must give way to the heathen gods of color who are greater than Him. And in society adherence to the liberal faith means that the white race must give way to the black race, because the white race is evil. All revolutions succeed when the powers that be doubt their right to rule. The people who had seen a great light, the people who walked on water because they believed in the Son of God, lost their faith in Him and fled to the heathen gods of color and to rational, science-based systems for comfort. Now the liberals rule.\n\nThe Europeans will come to their own again when they believe in their ancestral God, the God who enters human hearts, more than the liberals believe in their satanic faith. It is truly horrific to see what is happening to white people in what used to be called Christendom. And it is doubly sad and horrific to see white people respond to the liberals’ jihad with the Gnostic verbiage of liberalism. The Christian Europeans, our honored dead, speak to us from across the great divide and bid us fight. “We can’t fight,” is the modern Europeans’ response, “We can’t fight, because there is a huge chasm between our Europe and your Europe.” But then we hear our Savior’s voice: “The things which are impossible with men are possible with God.”\n\nMen who believe as the ancient European people believed do not permit their nations to become white slaughterhouses. Something within them, something called “that charity of honor” makes them rebel against the rule of the liberals. Until that something within becomes a burning passion in the hearts of the European people, the Tommy Robinsons, the Jonathan Fosters, and the entire white race will be offered up on the sacrificial alters of the liberals. The democratic process is, in all its essentials, the liberals’ satanic religious rite. \n\n\n\nhttps://cambriawillnotyield.wordpress.com/2018/08/11/democracy-the-white-mans-covenant-with-death/\n",
"mediaType": "text/plain"
}
},
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/458672240557305856/entities/urn:activity:876649735669288960/activity"
},
{
"type": "Create",
"actor": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/458672240557305856",
"object": {
"type": "Note",
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/458672240557305856/entities/urn:activity:876645131043631104",
"attributedTo": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/458672240557305856",
"content": "Imagine: underemployed for stupid political reasons, constantly reading old books, writing long diatribes on the importance of brutally effective absolutist government—Machiavelli was the world’s first neoreactionary blogger.<br /><br />You can see why The Prince is in print five centuries later. It’s a quick read, and it indulges in your basest political instincts. “Men ought either to be well treated or crushed because they can revenge themselves of lighter injuries, but of more serious ones they cannot.” Pow! “Destruction caused by [mercenaries] is put off only as long as the attack lasts. In peace one is robbed by them, and in war by the enemy.” Hard to find good help these days. “If everything is considered carefully, it will be found that something which looks like virtue, if followed would be his ruin; while something else, which looks wrong, may bring him security and wealth.” I, too, find my own flaws charming.<br /><br />Dictators and wannabe dictators eat it up.<br /><br />Of course, it’s possible that Machiavelli is joking. Or at least, it’s possible to read The Prince on at least three levels.<br /><br />A completely earnest book about how leaders ought to behave<br />A parody of people who earnestly rationalize the way awful leaders behave<br />Something more subtle, like an argument that monarchies are too unstable to be trusted and only republics can thrive. (Machiavelli likes to mention how hard Republics are to govern, but in a fairly admiring way.)<br />It could even be some layered combination of the three—maybe Machiavelli hopes a smart leader will read between the lines and see that he really is as cynical has he’s pretending he’s only pretending to be. Sort of like Mike Judge’s Idiocracy; the joke is on the person who thinks the author is 100% kidding.<br /><br />Machiavelli is worth reading, not for any one interpretation, but because his context is oddly close to our own. At the time that he was writing, Northern Italy was one of the richest places in the world, albeit one that suffered from persistently dysfunctional politics. The economic ground was shifting beneath their feet, though, as seafaring traders found cheaper trade routes to India and China. Like us, Machiavelli is setting down the rules even as the economic and technological fundamentals underpinning those rules are undergoing unprecedented changes.<br /><br />I reread The Prince in parallel with Michael Anton’s The Suit. Anton first came to my attention through The Flight 93 Election, an essay that took a lot of what I sensed about my vague fondness for Trump, and put it into forceful words. Before that essay, I thought of myself as a Trump opponent opponent, but that’s what shifted me to proponent.<br /><br />The irony that a Straussian wrote the best straightforwardly conservative defense of Trump is not lost on me, or on anyone else.<br /><br />The Suit is a book with a conceit. It’s a parody of The Prince, not in the loose sense that it applies Machiavellian dicta to male attire, but in a fractal sense: same structure, same tone, lots of examples paraphrased (Machiavelli’s chapter 12, “How Many Soldiers There Are, And Concerning Mercenaries” becomes “How Many Silhouettes There Are, And Concerning Designer Suits”—as Machiavelli condemns mercenaries, so does Anton condemn designer suits).<br /><br />All this talk of presidents’ outfits being limited by their perceived patrician upbringing maps to Machiavelli’s discussion of the paradox of Roman emperors, that the worse the emperor the longer he ruled, since bad emperors launch long wars, which keeps the troops too well-paid and occupied to bother with coups.<br /><br />The Suit closes with an Exhortation to Seize Dress and Save It From the Vulgarians (Machiavelli, naturally, ends The Prince with a chapter about saving Italy from the barbarians). And it’s a good point. As it turns out, the suit/dress shirt/pocket square/tie combo is, if not perfect, at least a local maximum—the result of centuries of evolutionary struggle between the desire to look conventional and the willingness for conventional-looking rich people to pay their tailor any sum necessary to make looking good feel comfortable.<br /><br />I’m not in a good position to judge the advice. I have a tendency to dress at the lowest end of whatever’s socially acceptable. But… why? Cheap clothes look cheap, even if they’re comfortable. Nice clothes look great, and are often more comfortable (especially if you’ve been hitting the squat rack; you’re either stuck with Fat Guy Jeans or, basically, yoga pants made out of denim).<br /><br />So, I’ve decided to step my wardrobe up a bit. It’s only honest—in a country that nearly elected Hillary and could have elected Bernie, we conservatives are the adults in the room and ought to dress accordingly.<br /><br />It’s time to suit up, gentlemen. Let’s dress to oppress.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><a href=\"https://sovereignexceptions.wordpress.com/2018/08/09/the-prince-and-the-suit/\" target=\"_blank\">https://sovereignexceptions.wordpress.com/2018/08/09/the-prince-and-the-suit/</a><br /><br /><br />",
"to": [
"https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public"
],
"cc": [
"https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/458672240557305856/followers"
],
"tag": [],
"url": "https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/876645131043631104",
"published": "2018-08-16T01:54:46+00:00",
"source": {
"content": "Imagine: underemployed for stupid political reasons, constantly reading old books, writing long diatribes on the importance of brutally effective absolutist government—Machiavelli was the world’s first neoreactionary blogger.\n\nYou can see why The Prince is in print five centuries later. It’s a quick read, and it indulges in your basest political instincts. “Men ought either to be well treated or crushed because they can revenge themselves of lighter injuries, but of more serious ones they cannot.” Pow! “Destruction caused by [mercenaries] is put off only as long as the attack lasts. In peace one is robbed by them, and in war by the enemy.” Hard to find good help these days. “If everything is considered carefully, it will be found that something which looks like virtue, if followed would be his ruin; while something else, which looks wrong, may bring him security and wealth.” I, too, find my own flaws charming.\n\nDictators and wannabe dictators eat it up.\n\nOf course, it’s possible that Machiavelli is joking. Or at least, it’s possible to read The Prince on at least three levels.\n\nA completely earnest book about how leaders ought to behave\nA parody of people who earnestly rationalize the way awful leaders behave\nSomething more subtle, like an argument that monarchies are too unstable to be trusted and only republics can thrive. (Machiavelli likes to mention how hard Republics are to govern, but in a fairly admiring way.)\nIt could even be some layered combination of the three—maybe Machiavelli hopes a smart leader will read between the lines and see that he really is as cynical has he’s pretending he’s only pretending to be. Sort of like Mike Judge’s Idiocracy; the joke is on the person who thinks the author is 100% kidding.\n\nMachiavelli is worth reading, not for any one interpretation, but because his context is oddly close to our own. At the time that he was writing, Northern Italy was one of the richest places in the world, albeit one that suffered from persistently dysfunctional politics. The economic ground was shifting beneath their feet, though, as seafaring traders found cheaper trade routes to India and China. Like us, Machiavelli is setting down the rules even as the economic and technological fundamentals underpinning those rules are undergoing unprecedented changes.\n\nI reread The Prince in parallel with Michael Anton’s The Suit. Anton first came to my attention through The Flight 93 Election, an essay that took a lot of what I sensed about my vague fondness for Trump, and put it into forceful words. Before that essay, I thought of myself as a Trump opponent opponent, but that’s what shifted me to proponent.\n\nThe irony that a Straussian wrote the best straightforwardly conservative defense of Trump is not lost on me, or on anyone else.\n\nThe Suit is a book with a conceit. It’s a parody of The Prince, not in the loose sense that it applies Machiavellian dicta to male attire, but in a fractal sense: same structure, same tone, lots of examples paraphrased (Machiavelli’s chapter 12, “How Many Soldiers There Are, And Concerning Mercenaries” becomes “How Many Silhouettes There Are, And Concerning Designer Suits”—as Machiavelli condemns mercenaries, so does Anton condemn designer suits).\n\nAll this talk of presidents’ outfits being limited by their perceived patrician upbringing maps to Machiavelli’s discussion of the paradox of Roman emperors, that the worse the emperor the longer he ruled, since bad emperors launch long wars, which keeps the troops too well-paid and occupied to bother with coups.\n\nThe Suit closes with an Exhortation to Seize Dress and Save It From the Vulgarians (Machiavelli, naturally, ends The Prince with a chapter about saving Italy from the barbarians). And it’s a good point. As it turns out, the suit/dress shirt/pocket square/tie combo is, if not perfect, at least a local maximum—the result of centuries of evolutionary struggle between the desire to look conventional and the willingness for conventional-looking rich people to pay their tailor any sum necessary to make looking good feel comfortable.\n\nI’m not in a good position to judge the advice. I have a tendency to dress at the lowest end of whatever’s socially acceptable. But… why? Cheap clothes look cheap, even if they’re comfortable. Nice clothes look great, and are often more comfortable (especially if you’ve been hitting the squat rack; you’re either stuck with Fat Guy Jeans or, basically, yoga pants made out of denim).\n\nSo, I’ve decided to step my wardrobe up a bit. It’s only honest—in a country that nearly elected Hillary and could have elected Bernie, we conservatives are the adults in the room and ought to dress accordingly.\n\nIt’s time to suit up, gentlemen. Let’s dress to oppress.\n\n\n\n\nhttps://sovereignexceptions.wordpress.com/2018/08/09/the-prince-and-the-suit/\n\n\n",
"mediaType": "text/plain"
}
},
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/458672240557305856/entities/urn:activity:876645131043631104/activity"
},
{
"type": "Create",
"actor": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/458672240557305856",
"object": {
"type": "Note",
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/458672240557305856/entities/urn:activity:876643701252399104",
"attributedTo": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/458672240557305856",
"content": "power is the ability to enact one’s will.<br /><br />Negative freedom is the ability to act according to one’s will without external constraint.<br /><br />Positive freedom is the ability to act according to one’s will.<br /><br />A right is a license granted by a higher (not necessarily divine) power to either act according to one’s will or enact ones will within a particular domain.<br /><br />Notice how similar these definitions are, differing primarily in emphasis.<br /><br />Freedom is a form of power, and power a form of freedom. Rights are a form of power granted from above.<br /><br />Any right or freedom is necessarily an exertion of power.<br /><br />Any right is conditional, and can be taken away by the granter of said right. The assignment of rights is an act of power of the superior upon the inferior.<br /><br />Granted freedom, whether by court, law, or constitution, is not truly freedom, but a right. It is conditional.<br /><br />All positive freedoms are necessarily granted, the provision of the ability to act is implied within the definition. Some negative freedoms may be granted, in which case they are not true freedom, merely another right, power bequeathed by the superior. Granted freedoms, freedoms as rights, liberal freedoms, are conditional upon the higher power granting them. They are constrained by that higher power and are therefore not true freedom.<br /><br />As noted, power comes from, at base, the capacity for violence.<br /><br />Rights are granted by a higher power with the greater capacity for violence; the superior grants his capacity for violence and his authority to his inferior.<br /><br />True freedom is a form of power, and, therefore, comes from, at base, a capacity for violence.<br /><br />True freedom is a reality, not a right.<br /><br />The reality of whether a person or people has the capacity and will for violence to stay free.<br /><br />True freedom dies well before any actual impositions on the people. It dies when reality becomes a right, and therefore conditional on a higher power.<br /><br />Illiberal freedom is the freedom of fact, true freedom.<br /><br /><br /><a href=\"http://freenortherner.com/2018/08/08/power-rights-and-illiberal-freedom/\" target=\"_blank\">http://freenortherner.com/2018/08/08/power-rights-and-illiberal-freedom/</a><br />",
"to": [
"https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public"
],
"cc": [
"https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/458672240557305856/followers"
],
"tag": [],
"url": "https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/876643701252399104",
"published": "2018-08-16T01:49:05+00:00",
"source": {
"content": "power is the ability to enact one’s will.\n\nNegative freedom is the ability to act according to one’s will without external constraint.\n\nPositive freedom is the ability to act according to one’s will.\n\nA right is a license granted by a higher (not necessarily divine) power to either act according to one’s will or enact ones will within a particular domain.\n\nNotice how similar these definitions are, differing primarily in emphasis.\n\nFreedom is a form of power, and power a form of freedom. Rights are a form of power granted from above.\n\nAny right or freedom is necessarily an exertion of power.\n\nAny right is conditional, and can be taken away by the granter of said right. The assignment of rights is an act of power of the superior upon the inferior.\n\nGranted freedom, whether by court, law, or constitution, is not truly freedom, but a right. It is conditional.\n\nAll positive freedoms are necessarily granted, the provision of the ability to act is implied within the definition. Some negative freedoms may be granted, in which case they are not true freedom, merely another right, power bequeathed by the superior. Granted freedoms, freedoms as rights, liberal freedoms, are conditional upon the higher power granting them. They are constrained by that higher power and are therefore not true freedom.\n\nAs noted, power comes from, at base, the capacity for violence.\n\nRights are granted by a higher power with the greater capacity for violence; the superior grants his capacity for violence and his authority to his inferior.\n\nTrue freedom is a form of power, and, therefore, comes from, at base, a capacity for violence.\n\nTrue freedom is a reality, not a right.\n\nThe reality of whether a person or people has the capacity and will for violence to stay free.\n\nTrue freedom dies well before any actual impositions on the people. It dies when reality becomes a right, and therefore conditional on a higher power.\n\nIlliberal freedom is the freedom of fact, true freedom.\n\n\nhttp://freenortherner.com/2018/08/08/power-rights-and-illiberal-freedom/\n",
"mediaType": "text/plain"
}
},
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/458672240557305856/entities/urn:activity:876643701252399104/activity"
},
{
"type": "Create",
"actor": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/458672240557305856",
"object": {
"type": "Note",
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/458672240557305856/entities/urn:activity:876642556982489088",
"attributedTo": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/458672240557305856",
"content": "The problem with classical prose, and, more generally, the imperative to saturate the scene of one media with terms and tropes from another is that a lot of material that hasn’t been properly “inspected” finds its way into your representations. It’s easiest to reach for the familiar in filling in the gaps left in trying out new media. One of the most revelatory effects of Goggle’s Ngram reader is the realization that concepts, words, that seem so natural as to be permanent features of the social landscape are quite recent creations and, in fact, deliberately created artifacts of the propaganda needs of World War II and then the Cold War. “Liberal democracy,” “Judeo-Christian,” “separation of Church and state,” “free market,” “nation of immigrants,” “racism,” and much more—none of them pre-date, in any significant way, World War II. The problem (well, one problem) with contemporary conservatives is that they’re still fighting the wars against the Nazis and the Soviets, like the proverbial Japanese solider lost on a Pacific island and never hearing about his country’s defeat. These terms are in turn embedded in larger networks of terms, which are in turn rooted in the disciplines upon which we rely in order to say pretty much anything. (The “separation of Church and state” becomes a serious topic in political science.) All of our thinking apparatuses need to be thoroughly overhauled.<br /><br />These concepts, which weigh down our thinking in ways that require continuous effort to notice, are in turn only the visible feature of habits, gestures, reactions and reflexes and that just as grounded in media, histories, and power struggles as the concepts themselves. Part of the purpose of the “originary grammar” I keep returning to, that is, the attempt to reduce all discourse to some relation between ostensive, imperative and declarative signs, is to help us in stripping all discourse and all disciplines of everything “unvetted,” everything bearing liberal assumptions or implications, precisely in the most take for granted places. Part of contemporary reactionary thought, of course, is the return to “old books” and therefore old and discarded concepts, and nothing I say here counters that practice at all, since retrieving, for example, the distinction between warriors, craftsmen and priests in the ordering of communities serves the same corrosive effect upon liberal concepts. But, of course, maybe society can no longer or should no longer be ordered in that way—these older concepts also need to be tested against what I think is the one criterion all post-liberals and anti-liberals can share: a privileging of order over freedom, however defined. We want to make order where we see disorder, and I think order can only mean defense of a center. If in fact, no social order can now be reduced to warrior/craftsman/priest that by no means invalidates the concepts (in general, we can be in much less of a rush to invalidate concepts—why not keep them around in case they prove useful at some point?); rather it renders that trichotomy a source of hypotheses and thought experiments.<br /><br />We could spend all of our time (I don’t say that we should) studying the discourses around us, including those of our fellow reactionaries, in search of concepts, words, phrases, even stylistic tics that have previously unnoticed tendrils reaching into the dense network of liberal power concepts. This would be time very well spent. It need not be antagonistic at all—quite to the contrary, it’s a kind of civil hygiene we would be performing for each other. Some of the most pioneering work done along these lines has been by the proprietor of the now defunct blog Reactionary Future, with its most important result to date being his Patron Theory of Politics. At least one of the future directions of such work will involve making thinking increasingly hypothetical. To question the meaning of a word or term is to treat it as a hypothesis: what follows from describing phenomena in these ways? The purpose of my concept of a “sovereign imaginary” is the same: when you say something is good or bad, right or wrong, desirable or undesirable, that we “should” or “must” do this or that, what form of central power would make possible the relation between what you say and what you take to be the “payoff” or “downstream” of what you say? Everything we say or do entails a hypothesis regarding the sovereign order making that saying or doing possible and intelligible.<br /><br />In a sense, I am proposing a kind of freedom of thought, one already practiced by many on the new or dissident right (which makes it possible for me to reflect upon it). We’re not obliged, nor does it always serve our purposes, to “prove” that we have a better theory of “human nature” or “social structure,” or to provide, on demand, iron-clad “alternatives” to the seemingly carved in the stone of history liberal order. It’s not as if we shouldn’t do these things, if they seem useful—my point is that these are not rules we need play by. Liberalism thoroughly saturates today’s media-scape, and a lot of what we can do is facilitate liberalism’s own self-dialogues, its incessant, narcissistic babblings. It’s helpful to point out that the truth of the matter is almost always pretty much exactly the opposite of what the liberal says; indeed, what liberals say is almost invariably a way of avoiding some damaging truth. My own approach, which I of course hope others will find compelling, is to keep asking about origin, center, power, deferral and discipline, questions liberalism must avoid under penalty of brain death.<br /><br /><br /><a href=\"http://gablog.cdh.ucla.edu/2018/08/hypothetically-speaking/\" target=\"_blank\">http://gablog.cdh.ucla.edu/2018/08/hypothetically-speaking/</a><br />",
"to": [
"https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public"
],
"cc": [
"https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/458672240557305856/followers"
],
"tag": [],
"url": "https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/876642556982489088",
"published": "2018-08-16T01:44:32+00:00",
"source": {
"content": "The problem with classical prose, and, more generally, the imperative to saturate the scene of one media with terms and tropes from another is that a lot of material that hasn’t been properly “inspected” finds its way into your representations. It’s easiest to reach for the familiar in filling in the gaps left in trying out new media. One of the most revelatory effects of Goggle’s Ngram reader is the realization that concepts, words, that seem so natural as to be permanent features of the social landscape are quite recent creations and, in fact, deliberately created artifacts of the propaganda needs of World War II and then the Cold War. “Liberal democracy,” “Judeo-Christian,” “separation of Church and state,” “free market,” “nation of immigrants,” “racism,” and much more—none of them pre-date, in any significant way, World War II. The problem (well, one problem) with contemporary conservatives is that they’re still fighting the wars against the Nazis and the Soviets, like the proverbial Japanese solider lost on a Pacific island and never hearing about his country’s defeat. These terms are in turn embedded in larger networks of terms, which are in turn rooted in the disciplines upon which we rely in order to say pretty much anything. (The “separation of Church and state” becomes a serious topic in political science.) All of our thinking apparatuses need to be thoroughly overhauled.\n\nThese concepts, which weigh down our thinking in ways that require continuous effort to notice, are in turn only the visible feature of habits, gestures, reactions and reflexes and that just as grounded in media, histories, and power struggles as the concepts themselves. Part of the purpose of the “originary grammar” I keep returning to, that is, the attempt to reduce all discourse to some relation between ostensive, imperative and declarative signs, is to help us in stripping all discourse and all disciplines of everything “unvetted,” everything bearing liberal assumptions or implications, precisely in the most take for granted places. Part of contemporary reactionary thought, of course, is the return to “old books” and therefore old and discarded concepts, and nothing I say here counters that practice at all, since retrieving, for example, the distinction between warriors, craftsmen and priests in the ordering of communities serves the same corrosive effect upon liberal concepts. But, of course, maybe society can no longer or should no longer be ordered in that way—these older concepts also need to be tested against what I think is the one criterion all post-liberals and anti-liberals can share: a privileging of order over freedom, however defined. We want to make order where we see disorder, and I think order can only mean defense of a center. If in fact, no social order can now be reduced to warrior/craftsman/priest that by no means invalidates the concepts (in general, we can be in much less of a rush to invalidate concepts—why not keep them around in case they prove useful at some point?); rather it renders that trichotomy a source of hypotheses and thought experiments.\n\nWe could spend all of our time (I don’t say that we should) studying the discourses around us, including those of our fellow reactionaries, in search of concepts, words, phrases, even stylistic tics that have previously unnoticed tendrils reaching into the dense network of liberal power concepts. This would be time very well spent. It need not be antagonistic at all—quite to the contrary, it’s a kind of civil hygiene we would be performing for each other. Some of the most pioneering work done along these lines has been by the proprietor of the now defunct blog Reactionary Future, with its most important result to date being his Patron Theory of Politics. At least one of the future directions of such work will involve making thinking increasingly hypothetical. To question the meaning of a word or term is to treat it as a hypothesis: what follows from describing phenomena in these ways? The purpose of my concept of a “sovereign imaginary” is the same: when you say something is good or bad, right or wrong, desirable or undesirable, that we “should” or “must” do this or that, what form of central power would make possible the relation between what you say and what you take to be the “payoff” or “downstream” of what you say? Everything we say or do entails a hypothesis regarding the sovereign order making that saying or doing possible and intelligible.\n\nIn a sense, I am proposing a kind of freedom of thought, one already practiced by many on the new or dissident right (which makes it possible for me to reflect upon it). We’re not obliged, nor does it always serve our purposes, to “prove” that we have a better theory of “human nature” or “social structure,” or to provide, on demand, iron-clad “alternatives” to the seemingly carved in the stone of history liberal order. It’s not as if we shouldn’t do these things, if they seem useful—my point is that these are not rules we need play by. Liberalism thoroughly saturates today’s media-scape, and a lot of what we can do is facilitate liberalism’s own self-dialogues, its incessant, narcissistic babblings. It’s helpful to point out that the truth of the matter is almost always pretty much exactly the opposite of what the liberal says; indeed, what liberals say is almost invariably a way of avoiding some damaging truth. My own approach, which I of course hope others will find compelling, is to keep asking about origin, center, power, deferral and discipline, questions liberalism must avoid under penalty of brain death.\n\n\nhttp://gablog.cdh.ucla.edu/2018/08/hypothetically-speaking/\n",
"mediaType": "text/plain"
}
},
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/458672240557305856/entities/urn:activity:876642556982489088/activity"
},
{
"type": "Create",
"actor": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/458672240557305856",
"object": {
"type": "Note",
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/458672240557305856/entities/urn:activity:876640571088793600",
"attributedTo": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/458672240557305856",
"content": "What is most telling about this event is not the actions of a single man, but the overwhelmingly positive public reaction I’ve seen so far on social media. Some are even calling him “Sky King.”<br />People often identify with the motives of mass shooters more than they admit but selfishly taking the lives of others dampens any sympathy they may feel. Even in the darkest and angriest periods of my life I was disgusted by the thought of petulantly lashing out against people I didn’t even know. Sky King Russell sets a new precedent by going out in a stoic and affable manner while harming no one.<br /><br />This may be a natural reaction to incentives as mass shootings are now so common that like car crashes, they cease to be of much note. It now takes some more flair and creativity to get the mass society’s attention and hold it for a news cycle or two as one’s final legacy to the ages. A fleeting reward but still better for a few than to labor a whole lifetime away, appreciated by no one.<br /><br />In this time of constricting internet censorship, this suicide is an important indicator of the culture. The more the system takes away from people, the less they have to lose. Isolated suicidal people and nutjobs are harmless on their own, but the crowds regard the Sky King as almost a Robin Hood kind of figure. He hurt no one else, showing millions a glimpse of real freedom, while putting a dent in some impersonal corporation’s bottom line. When crowds begin to support this kind of behavior, the real trouble for elites is just beginning. It is a sign that under certain circumstances, certain targets are seen as legitimate by most people.<br /><br />Very tellingly, Russell was a European-American, especially when most airport workers I see running around are minorities. Suicidal behavior, especially that requiring real initiative and planning is endemic to higher-agency Euros and Asians. The Africans and Indios of this world may groan from time to time under the lash of their overlords but they resign themselves to the grimmest slog of daily life and always manage to push out progeny just the same. I honestly cannot completely blame the world elite for wanting to replace a troublesome population with more pliant and domesticable strains. If that task were completed, there would be no more airplane thefts and no more flamboyant aerobatic maneuvers born from heightened existential consciousness.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><a href=\"https://colonyofcommodus.wordpress.com/2018/08/12/seattle-airplane-suicide-is-a-barometer-of-culture/\" target=\"_blank\">https://colonyofcommodus.wordpress.com/2018/08/12/seattle-airplane-suicide-is-a-barometer-of-culture/</a><br />",
"to": [
"https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public"
],
"cc": [
"https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/458672240557305856/followers"
],
"tag": [],
"url": "https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/876640571088793600",
"published": "2018-08-16T01:36:39+00:00",
"source": {
"content": "What is most telling about this event is not the actions of a single man, but the overwhelmingly positive public reaction I’ve seen so far on social media. Some are even calling him “Sky King.”\nPeople often identify with the motives of mass shooters more than they admit but selfishly taking the lives of others dampens any sympathy they may feel. Even in the darkest and angriest periods of my life I was disgusted by the thought of petulantly lashing out against people I didn’t even know. Sky King Russell sets a new precedent by going out in a stoic and affable manner while harming no one.\n\nThis may be a natural reaction to incentives as mass shootings are now so common that like car crashes, they cease to be of much note. It now takes some more flair and creativity to get the mass society’s attention and hold it for a news cycle or two as one’s final legacy to the ages. A fleeting reward but still better for a few than to labor a whole lifetime away, appreciated by no one.\n\nIn this time of constricting internet censorship, this suicide is an important indicator of the culture. The more the system takes away from people, the less they have to lose. Isolated suicidal people and nutjobs are harmless on their own, but the crowds regard the Sky King as almost a Robin Hood kind of figure. He hurt no one else, showing millions a glimpse of real freedom, while putting a dent in some impersonal corporation’s bottom line. When crowds begin to support this kind of behavior, the real trouble for elites is just beginning. It is a sign that under certain circumstances, certain targets are seen as legitimate by most people.\n\nVery tellingly, Russell was a European-American, especially when most airport workers I see running around are minorities. Suicidal behavior, especially that requiring real initiative and planning is endemic to higher-agency Euros and Asians. The Africans and Indios of this world may groan from time to time under the lash of their overlords but they resign themselves to the grimmest slog of daily life and always manage to push out progeny just the same. I honestly cannot completely blame the world elite for wanting to replace a troublesome population with more pliant and domesticable strains. If that task were completed, there would be no more airplane thefts and no more flamboyant aerobatic maneuvers born from heightened existential consciousness.\n\n\n\n\nhttps://colonyofcommodus.wordpress.com/2018/08/12/seattle-airplane-suicide-is-a-barometer-of-culture/\n",
"mediaType": "text/plain"
}
},
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/458672240557305856/entities/urn:activity:876640571088793600/activity"
},
{
"type": "Create",
"actor": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/458672240557305856",
"object": {
"type": "Note",
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/458672240557305856/entities/urn:activity:795488888800714752",
"attributedTo": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/458672240557305856",
"content": "<a href=\"https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/795488888800714752\" target=\"_blank\">https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/795488888800714752</a>",
"to": [
"https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public"
],
"cc": [
"https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/458672240557305856/followers"
],
"tag": [],
"url": "https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/795488888800714752",
"published": "2018-01-04T03:08:50+00:00",
"source": {
"content": "https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/795488888800714752",
"mediaType": "text/plain"
}
},
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/458672240557305856/entities/urn:activity:795488888800714752/activity"
},
{
"type": "Create",
"actor": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/458672240557305856",
"object": {
"type": "Note",
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/458672240557305856/entities/urn:activity:795488746567671808",
"attributedTo": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/458672240557305856",
"content": "The Alien Acts gave the federal government the authority to deport and imprison non-citizens in the United States that were viewed as dangerous to the republic. The Sedition Act outlawed any speech that criticized the actions of the President and Congress during wartime.<br /><br />Ironically, this set of laws designed to crack down on dissent spurred the authoring of two of the most powerful criticisms of centralized governmental power in U.S. history–the Kentucky Resolutions and the Virginia Resolutions of 1798.These Resolutions were authored in secret by founding fathers James Madison and Thomas Jefferson and were passed in the states houses of Kentucky and Virginia as official condemnations of the Alien and Sedition Acts.<br /><br />Although written several years after the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were ratified, these resolutions lay out the philosophical basis of the 10th Amendment and reveal exactly how the federal government derived its authority.<br /><br />Both Madison and Jefferson base their resolutions what is now called the “compact theory” of the derivation of the federal government’s power. The essence of the compact theory is that states are not granted their powers magnanimously from a centralized authority, but rather the peoples of the individual states were the original grantors of these powers while delegating certain others to the general government.<br /><br />Madison and Jefferson argued that if the constitutional framework were set up in the former structure, the federal government would be responsible for defining its own power. Therefore it was crucial that the states had a source of their own authority to preserve a balance between the opposing powers.<br /><br />Most importantly, Jefferson noted in the Kentucky Resolutions that laws passed by the federal government that overstep its constitutional bounds are void. He wrote that nullification is the “rightful remedy” whenever powers are assumed by the federal government that have not been delegated. Jefferson’s justification for nullification as an avenue of defense against centralized overreach is that without it, there is no way to combat a majority in Congress.<br /><br />In the Virginia Resolutions, Madison argues that states have the right and duty to interpose when the federal government oversteps its constitutional limits. Madison said that by implementing the Alien and Sedition Acts, the federal government had “expanded on certain general phrases” and the judiciary and legislative powers of the individual states had been subsumed by the central government. In Madison’s view, these acts set a dangerous precedent of federal overreach that would slowly transform the democratic republic constructed by the constitution into a mixed monarchy. The states were the last line of defense to check to the expansion of centralized power and had an “unquestionable right” to do so.<br /><br /><a href=\"http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2017/12/30/the-kentucky-and-virginia-resolutions-offering-a-pathway-to-a-more-free-society/\" target=\"_blank\">http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2017/12/30/the-kentucky-and-virginia-resolutions-offering-a-pathway-to-a-more-free-society/</a><br />",
"to": [
"https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public"
],
"cc": [
"https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/458672240557305856/followers"
],
"tag": [],
"url": "https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/795488746567671808",
"published": "2018-01-04T03:08:16+00:00",
"source": {
"content": "The Alien Acts gave the federal government the authority to deport and imprison non-citizens in the United States that were viewed as dangerous to the republic. The Sedition Act outlawed any speech that criticized the actions of the President and Congress during wartime.\n\nIronically, this set of laws designed to crack down on dissent spurred the authoring of two of the most powerful criticisms of centralized governmental power in U.S. history–the Kentucky Resolutions and the Virginia Resolutions of 1798.These Resolutions were authored in secret by founding fathers James Madison and Thomas Jefferson and were passed in the states houses of Kentucky and Virginia as official condemnations of the Alien and Sedition Acts.\n\nAlthough written several years after the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were ratified, these resolutions lay out the philosophical basis of the 10th Amendment and reveal exactly how the federal government derived its authority.\n\nBoth Madison and Jefferson base their resolutions what is now called the “compact theory” of the derivation of the federal government’s power. The essence of the compact theory is that states are not granted their powers magnanimously from a centralized authority, but rather the peoples of the individual states were the original grantors of these powers while delegating certain others to the general government.\n\nMadison and Jefferson argued that if the constitutional framework were set up in the former structure, the federal government would be responsible for defining its own power. Therefore it was crucial that the states had a source of their own authority to preserve a balance between the opposing powers.\n\nMost importantly, Jefferson noted in the Kentucky Resolutions that laws passed by the federal government that overstep its constitutional bounds are void. He wrote that nullification is the “rightful remedy” whenever powers are assumed by the federal government that have not been delegated. Jefferson’s justification for nullification as an avenue of defense against centralized overreach is that without it, there is no way to combat a majority in Congress.\n\nIn the Virginia Resolutions, Madison argues that states have the right and duty to interpose when the federal government oversteps its constitutional limits. Madison said that by implementing the Alien and Sedition Acts, the federal government had “expanded on certain general phrases” and the judiciary and legislative powers of the individual states had been subsumed by the central government. In Madison’s view, these acts set a dangerous precedent of federal overreach that would slowly transform the democratic republic constructed by the constitution into a mixed monarchy. The states were the last line of defense to check to the expansion of centralized power and had an “unquestionable right” to do so.\n\nhttp://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2017/12/30/the-kentucky-and-virginia-resolutions-offering-a-pathway-to-a-more-free-society/\n",
"mediaType": "text/plain"
}
},
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/458672240557305856/entities/urn:activity:795488746567671808/activity"
},
{
"type": "Create",
"actor": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/458672240557305856",
"object": {
"type": "Note",
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/458672240557305856/entities/urn:activity:795488524315697152",
"attributedTo": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/458672240557305856",
"content": "The most often stated cause of the Great Depression is the October 1929 stock market crash. Little is further from the truth. The Great Depression was caused by a massive government failure led by the Federal Reserve’s rapid 25 percent contraction of the money supply. The next government failure was the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, which increased U.S. tariffs by more than 50 percent. Those failures were compounded by President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal legislation.<br /><br />Leftists love to praise New Deal interventionist legislation. But FDR’s very own treasury secretary, Henry Morgenthau, saw the folly of the New Deal, writing: “We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. … We have never made good on our promises. … I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started … and an enormous debt to boot!” The bottom line is that the Federal Reserve Board, the Smoot-Hawley tariffs and Roosevelt’s New Deal policies turned what would have been a two, three- or four-year sharp downturn into a 16-year affair.<br /><br />Here’s my question never asked about the Federal Reserve Act of 1913: How much sense does it make for us to give seven unelected people life-and-death control over our economy and hence our lives?<br /><br />While you’re pondering that question, consider another: Should we give the government, through the Federal Communications Commission, control over the internet? During the Clinton administration, along with the help of a Republican-dominated Congress, the visionary 1996 Telecommunications Act declared it “the policy of the United States” that internet service providers and websites be “unfettered by Federal or State regulation.” The act sought “to promote competition and reduce regulation in order to secure lower prices and higher quality services for American telecommunications consumers and encourage the rapid deployment of new telecommunications technologies.”<br /><br />In 2015, the Obama White House pressured the FCC to create the Open Internet Order, which has been branded by its advocates as net neutrality. This move overthrew the spirit of the Telecommunications Act. It represents creeping FCC jurisdiction, as its traditional areas of regulation — such as broadcast media and telecommunications — have been transformed by the internet, or at least diminished in importance. Fortunately, it’s being challenged by the new FCC chairman, Ajit Pai, who has announced he will repeal the FCC’s heavy-handed 2015 internet regulations.<br /><br />The United States has been the world leader in the development of internet technology precisely because it has been relatively unfettered by federal and state regulation. The best thing that the U.S. Congress can do for internet entrepreneurs and internet consumers is to send the FCC out to pasture as it did with the Civil Aeronautics Board, which regulated the airline industry, and the Interstate Commerce Commission, which regulated the trucking industry. When we got rid of those regulatory agencies, we saw a greater number of competitors, and consumers paid lower prices.<br /><br /><a href=\"http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2018/01/03/dangers-of-government-control/\" target=\"_blank\">http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2018/01/03/dangers-of-government-control/</a><br />",
"to": [
"https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public"
],
"cc": [
"https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/458672240557305856/followers"
],
"tag": [],
"url": "https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/795488524315697152",
"published": "2018-01-04T03:07:23+00:00",
"source": {
"content": "The most often stated cause of the Great Depression is the October 1929 stock market crash. Little is further from the truth. The Great Depression was caused by a massive government failure led by the Federal Reserve’s rapid 25 percent contraction of the money supply. The next government failure was the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, which increased U.S. tariffs by more than 50 percent. Those failures were compounded by President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal legislation.\n\nLeftists love to praise New Deal interventionist legislation. But FDR’s very own treasury secretary, Henry Morgenthau, saw the folly of the New Deal, writing: “We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. … We have never made good on our promises. … I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started … and an enormous debt to boot!” The bottom line is that the Federal Reserve Board, the Smoot-Hawley tariffs and Roosevelt’s New Deal policies turned what would have been a two, three- or four-year sharp downturn into a 16-year affair.\n\nHere’s my question never asked about the Federal Reserve Act of 1913: How much sense does it make for us to give seven unelected people life-and-death control over our economy and hence our lives?\n\nWhile you’re pondering that question, consider another: Should we give the government, through the Federal Communications Commission, control over the internet? During the Clinton administration, along with the help of a Republican-dominated Congress, the visionary 1996 Telecommunications Act declared it “the policy of the United States” that internet service providers and websites be “unfettered by Federal or State regulation.” The act sought “to promote competition and reduce regulation in order to secure lower prices and higher quality services for American telecommunications consumers and encourage the rapid deployment of new telecommunications technologies.”\n\nIn 2015, the Obama White House pressured the FCC to create the Open Internet Order, which has been branded by its advocates as net neutrality. This move overthrew the spirit of the Telecommunications Act. It represents creeping FCC jurisdiction, as its traditional areas of regulation — such as broadcast media and telecommunications — have been transformed by the internet, or at least diminished in importance. Fortunately, it’s being challenged by the new FCC chairman, Ajit Pai, who has announced he will repeal the FCC’s heavy-handed 2015 internet regulations.\n\nThe United States has been the world leader in the development of internet technology precisely because it has been relatively unfettered by federal and state regulation. The best thing that the U.S. Congress can do for internet entrepreneurs and internet consumers is to send the FCC out to pasture as it did with the Civil Aeronautics Board, which regulated the airline industry, and the Interstate Commerce Commission, which regulated the trucking industry. When we got rid of those regulatory agencies, we saw a greater number of competitors, and consumers paid lower prices.\n\nhttp://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2018/01/03/dangers-of-government-control/\n",
"mediaType": "text/plain"
}
},
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/458672240557305856/entities/urn:activity:795488524315697152/activity"
},
{
"type": "Create",
"actor": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/458672240557305856",
"object": {
"type": "Note",
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/458672240557305856/entities/urn:activity:795488289031520256",
"attributedTo": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/458672240557305856",
"content": "The investigators say they have documented proof that the FBI believed there were laws broken by Clinton when she transmitted classified information on her unsecured email server. There is also evidence that the FBI began the process of exonerating Clinton before evidence under subpoena had been received and only a few witnesses had been interviewed.<br /><br />For the first time, investigators say they have secured written evidence that the FBI believed there was evidence that some laws were broken when the former secretary of [s]tate and her top aides transmitted classified information through her insecure private email server, lawmakers and investigators told The Hill.<br /><br />That evidence includes passages in FBI documents stating [that] the \"sheer volume\" of classified information that flowed through Clinton's insecure emails was proof of criminality as well as an admission of false statements by one key witness in the case, the investigators said.<br /><br />The name of the witness is redacted from the FBI documents but lawmakers said he was an employee of a computer firm that helped maintain her personal server after she left office as America's top diplomat and who belatedly admitted he had permanently erased an archive of her messages in 2015 after they had been subpoenaed by Congress.<br /><br />The investigators also confirmed that the FBI began drafting a statement exonerating Clinton of any crimes while evidence responsive to subpoenas was still outstanding and before agents had interviewed more than a dozen key witnesses.<br /><br />Those witnesses included Clinton and the computer firm employee who permanently erased her email archives just days after the emails were subpoenaed by Congress, the investigators said.<br /><br />The New York Times is already calling the GOP effort to investigate the Justice Department and FBI \"fake.\" This is a pre-emptive strike against Republicans and an effort to keep the focus on the \"collusion\" narrative that so far has been a dry hole for investigators. Democrats will take that tack if and when committees begin to look in earnest at the FBI's actions to investigate Clinton. <br /><br /><a href=\"http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/01/investigators_find_documented_evidence_of_irregularities_in_fbi_hillary_email_probe.html\" target=\"_blank\">http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/01/investigators_find_documented_evidence_of_irregularities_in_fbi_hillary_email_probe.html</a><br />",
"to": [
"https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public"
],
"cc": [
"https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/458672240557305856/followers"
],
"tag": [],
"url": "https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/795488289031520256",
"published": "2018-01-04T03:06:27+00:00",
"source": {
"content": "The investigators say they have documented proof that the FBI believed there were laws broken by Clinton when she transmitted classified information on her unsecured email server. There is also evidence that the FBI began the process of exonerating Clinton before evidence under subpoena had been received and only a few witnesses had been interviewed.\n\nFor the first time, investigators say they have secured written evidence that the FBI believed there was evidence that some laws were broken when the former secretary of [s]tate and her top aides transmitted classified information through her insecure private email server, lawmakers and investigators told The Hill.\n\nThat evidence includes passages in FBI documents stating [that] the \"sheer volume\" of classified information that flowed through Clinton's insecure emails was proof of criminality as well as an admission of false statements by one key witness in the case, the investigators said.\n\nThe name of the witness is redacted from the FBI documents but lawmakers said he was an employee of a computer firm that helped maintain her personal server after she left office as America's top diplomat and who belatedly admitted he had permanently erased an archive of her messages in 2015 after they had been subpoenaed by Congress.\n\nThe investigators also confirmed that the FBI began drafting a statement exonerating Clinton of any crimes while evidence responsive to subpoenas was still outstanding and before agents had interviewed more than a dozen key witnesses.\n\nThose witnesses included Clinton and the computer firm employee who permanently erased her email archives just days after the emails were subpoenaed by Congress, the investigators said.\n\nThe New York Times is already calling the GOP effort to investigate the Justice Department and FBI \"fake.\" This is a pre-emptive strike against Republicans and an effort to keep the focus on the \"collusion\" narrative that so far has been a dry hole for investigators. Democrats will take that tack if and when committees begin to look in earnest at the FBI's actions to investigate Clinton. \n\nhttp://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/01/investigators_find_documented_evidence_of_irregularities_in_fbi_hillary_email_probe.html\n",
"mediaType": "text/plain"
}
},
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/458672240557305856/entities/urn:activity:795488289031520256/activity"
}
],
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/458672240557305856/outbox",
"partOf": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/458672240557305856/outboxoutbox"
}