PropOrNot Celebrates Death of First Amendment

An article posted today on Global Research features a couple screen grabs from the PropOrNot Twitter feed. Both celebrate the takedown of hundreds of social media accounts this week. 

image.png

image-1.png

Notice the emojis. Cute touch, would’t you say?

I don’t believe for a second the anonymous group or individual behind PropOrNot actually believes Russia had anything to do with the social accounts in question. But it’s possible they may have fooled themselves into believing this. If they’re idiots. 

I’m convinced PropOrNot is in some way linked to intelligence or its corporate appendages. 

But here’s what’s interesting. The accounts disappeared were included in a Washington Post article in 2016. The Post collaborated with the mysterious (front operation) PropOrNot to blacklist popular and well-trafficked websites. 

Before the election the elite had brainstormed ways to get rid of an alternative media that has dogged it at every turn, primarily after 9/11. The growth of anti-establishment websites expanded exponentially with the rise of social media and affordable full-featured web hosting. 

The Clinton-DNC loss was immediately blamed on the Russia and its supposed nefarious connections to Putin and the Oligarchs. This soon evolved into a detailed and full-blown conspiracy theory despite its implausibility. The establishment media then turned it into a Big Lie. It was repeated over and over until it became an unarguable fact. 

The manufactured hysteria was used to get Congress to investigate—with the intrepid Diane Feinstein leading the charge—and this added another layer of authentication. In true Mussolini fashion the corporate sector piled on. The Atlantic Council launched its Hamilton Dashboard and corporate news organizations began employing “fact-checkers” (almost exclusively with a liberal bias) to tell Americans what is fake and part of a large Russian scheme to destroy democracy. 

History is replete with examples of the state covertly undermining and destroying organizations and individuals perceived as threats to its monopoly of power and violence. The accounts closed down by corporate social media on the heels of the takedown of Alex Jones were tagged for destruction a couple years ago. This is a highly coordinated effort that shares a parallel with the destruction of Occupy Wall Street and many other movements before it. 

The phase following the sanitization of corporate social media will include efforts to pressure ISPs and providers into closing down accounts and denying service those included on a no-fly list for the internet. All of this will continue to build on the discredited and absurd Russian influence ruse until the mission is accomplished.

I realize millions of Americans understand the whole remarkably lame Russian influence campfire story is transparently bogus. But that doesn’t matter. Influential members of Congress believe it—or were told to believe it—and this will result in legislation and possibly even a confrontation with Russia. 

creatdive commons by-sa_RGB-350x122

17 thoughts on “PropOrNot Celebrates Death of First Amendment”

    1. If I came to your house and began talking about killing people, and you threw me out, that wouldn’t be censorship. it would be you exercising your property rights. Facebook, Google, etc., are in bed with the government, as I point out in my latest video, so there is censorship there, since only government can censor, everybody else is exercising their property rights.

      Like

      1. I don’t dispute that you have every right to censor your site. Indeed you do. It’s your site. Everyone else has that same right too. (…like Google and Facebook, etc.) I merely point it out that you censor too.

        Government is different. They aren’t a private entity. It’s censorship is by forced edict and dishonesty/subversion and is of other people’s property.

        And so what if I talk about burning alphabet soup agencies? It doesn’t mean I’m going to do it. It doesn’t mean everyone else has to. It’s just a conversation. What is wrong with burning their facilities down anyway?

        Like

      2. “If I came to your house and began talking about killing people, and you threw me out, that wouldn’t be censorship. it would be you exercising your property rights.”

        I probably wouldn’t throw you out, but would probably indulge the conversation. I am not closed to the idea that sometimes people really do need to be killed. Maybe you’d have a good reason for your position that whoever needs to die.

        (Look at the CIA and NSA track record, consider all of their victims. Maybe burning them down isn’t such a bad idea?)

        And your home isn’t the same as a blog. Presumably, you welcome comments from readers here. It’s kind of an open forum thing.

        Like

      3. “Sorry, no consent for violence, even if you say it is make-believe.”

        It’s not necessarily make believe. Some populations actually have balls. Those types of things do happen.

        And it’s not actually violence either. If someone punches you, and you politely ask them not to do it again, and they do it again, then again, and again, and again, …what do you call punching them back? Violence? ..No. That’s called defense because it is a response to violence.

        So, if an organization violated countless people (in every sense of the word violence) for a long period of time, what do you call the use of force against such organization?

        “The government would have a different interpretation.”

        Of course it does. Government is a false forced reality. Statists think they’re gods, suffer from massive psychotic delusions of grandeur.

        The problem is that they hire thugs to boss everyone around with guns and to do all sorts of sick evil weird things. I don’t really see asking the fox to stop eating the hens it’s assigned to protect as a good strategy.

        Like

  1. The first amendment is bullshit anyway. The whole constitution is. It’s nothing but a framework for coercive government, and the bill of rights is a grossly inadequate set of standards that simply manages rights for the convenience of the state. It protects nothing. It’s just double-speak nonsense.

    It needs to be burned, replaced by something non-governmental.

    Like

    1. The bill of rights is a sick statist joke, a complete clusterfuk. It has nothing to do with rights or protecting them. It is about convenience of the state. It is the very tool used to enslave you.

      Does prohibiting congress from making laws really protect anything?

      You have a right to defense because you have a natural instinct of self preservation of yourself that extends to your property family and community. It isn’t limited to things like firearms, but is by any means necessary or available. It has nothing to do with any state militias either. Your bill of rights tells you that you have a right to specific property to facilitate a militia. That’s not a right. That’s a state’s convenience. It does not protect your right to defense.

      Your property and privacy isn’t protected either. Your bill of rights recognizes that you have a right to privacy and property unless government has a reason and a man who says magic special words describes it. It tells you that you have a right to be violated under certain conditions that resemble casting a magic spell.

      You have a right to not have soldiers invade your home except in a time of war? Are you fuking kidding me?

      You don’t have to explain a really bad crime unless a bunch of people are listening, unless it is a time of war?

      Were you born with a series of presidents attached to you? WTF is inalienable about a complete stranger gang boss being unfit for duty?

      Excessive bail, fines, cruel and unusual punishments? Excessive is wrong, but normal proper punishment is okay? Seriously? What is inalienable about that? Who gets signed into existence by law? How is that even relevant?

      Do humans have a natural instinct of avoiding drugs and alcohol?

      Did women somehow not possess individual thought or the capability to choose who they want running their gangs until government wrote it on paper?

      Like

  2. Censorship here ?
    Give me a break. You want censorship, try Veterans Today, now there’s a Russophile website who’ll censor anything anti-communist or any post that offers clarity and truth in opposition to their ridiculous propaganda.
    Disgus is another heavily-censored outlet. Truth ? “I don’t need no stinkin’ truth”.
    Nimmo presents clear and reasoned reporting.

    Like

    1. Nimmo does a great job. But he still censors. He apparently doesn’t like me talking about burning CIA and NSA facilities and their corporate sponsors.

      Maybe the Orwellian thing is getting to him.

      Like

      1. The establishment is clamping down on dissident voices already, as the article points out. Why raise a red flag by posting inflammatory nonsense?

        If you want to abuse your free speech privilege to advocate pointless (and illegal) violence, that’s your choice. But you have no “right” to do it on someone else’s platform.

        Like

      2. “The establishment is clamping down on dissident voices already, as the article points out.”

        All the more reason to rock the boat.

        “Why raise a red flag by posting inflammatory nonsense?”

        My flag is solid black.

        “If you want to abuse your free speech privilege to advocate pointless (and illegal) violence, that’s your choice. But you have no “right” to do it on someone else’s platform.”

        I can say whatever I want, wherever I want. If someone wants to delete or ban, it’s their site, their right, so it’s whatever. As far as “illegal” is concerned, I couldn’t care less about your violent fictitious standards. What isn’t illegal in your statist serf-world? And a response against violence is not violence. It’s called rightful defense, which is the part of the point that you apparently missed.

        Like

  3. I can’t censor. I’m not a government created entity like Google and Facebook. I discriminate, as all humans do. All other “censorship” is merely an expression of property rights.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s