Blog Archives

“Merciless Indian Savages”: Why Facebook Must Be Broken Up

nazi facebook

We had in the last few days another example of the way Facebook tries to control everything you say and, in time and unavoidably, the way you think. 

Facebook’s apology for censoring the Declaration of Independence as hate speech does not make the problem go away.

In fact, it makes it worse. 

If Facebook had stated that the censorship was due to a pot-smoking, White-hating, “Native American” (means “redskin” to you and me) SJW who has already been fired, this would have been scary indeed, but still in the realm of human error. But this is not what Facebook says. 

The censorphip was automatic, software-driven, they say in their apology. Most probably, though they don’t say it in order to have their mistake more mercilessly exposed, because of Jefferson’s reference to “merciless Indian Savages”. This means that in that huge, sanitised leftist kindergarten called Facebook you can’t express a perfectly innocuous – and historically very accurate – opinion without your entire paragraph being removed by Big Libtard Brother. 

Facebook has not said that they will put an end to computerised censorship. They are obviously very happy with what they are doing. After being caught, they are simply explaining the embarrassment with the fact that hey, they censor you automatically, at times something is bound to go wrong.     

If “Indian Savages” is a non-word, non meriting existence in the Satanic Kingdom of Facebook, what next? Faggot? Abortionist? Sodomite? Trannie? Gun-grabber? MAGA?

It’s an easy game, you see. Everything I don’t like is “hate speech”, because that pathetic circus freak formerly known as Bruce Jenner might, say, commit suicide if you call him “pathetic circus freak formerly known as Bruce Jenner”.

Facebook must be broken up. not only because of their immense power, but also because of the brazenness with which they abuse it. Publicly, insistently so, and defending the abuse even as they are caught with it. 

Enough with these media monsters.

Break them up, Mr President. 

Make freedom of speech great again. 

 

Advertisements

Facebook, Twitter, And Google Need To Be Broken Up.

facebook racists

 

This is the last episode of many in which conservative voices have been silenced by the progressive media.  

Like Diamond and Silk, Mark Dice is expressing perfectly legitimate opinions in a perfectly reasonable way. But exactly this is the problem for the Nazis running Twitter, Youtube and Facebook: if you have ideas I don’t like, you must be excluded from the public discourse. 

It is high time the US legislators (I have no hope that anything may happen in Europe) realise the threat to our freedoms emanating from these organisations, which are quasi-monopolies (and factual monopolies) in the space in which they operate. They must be broken up just in the same way as past monopolies. They are infinitely more dangerous than any monopoly of the past because they do not impact merely the way you spend, but the way you think and the way you vote. 

We can’t allow these companies to lord over one global platform each. There must be enough choices for the consumer to choose his own vehicle or social expression, and there must be legislation protecting the freedoms of the citizen when they enter such spaces; then Twitter, Facebook and Youtube, and actually the entire platform on which they operate, cannot be seen as “private spaces”, but as a public domain in which the freedoms of the individual cannot be infringed.

I hope that president Trump realises this soon and become the promoter of effective legislative action, making of this a constant issue in the public arena until the electors force their representatives to act.

Break them up. If we don’t act now, this could be the nightmare of the next decade or, perhaps, generation. 

WordPress: The Multiplication of The “Followers” Explained

Click to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 2,496 other followers

This appears on my blog as I write this. It truly suggests the idea that 2496 people are following my WordPress blog.

Some time ago, the number of those who “follow” me multiplied from around 180 to around 1600, or the like, can’t remember the figures now. I thought it was a mistake or a technical glitch. It made me feel bad, because it sounded like bragging of a following that is just not there.

The new “statistics” page of WordPress allowed to shed light on the matter. It is clear that WordPress lumps together one’s followers on Twitter, Facebook, email and blog itself, if one uses the “publicize” app that allows automatic posting of one’s blog posts on other platforms. At the moment I have 213 readers who follow the blog directly, and 207 who receive email notifications. To this, WordPress happily adds 1707 Twitter and 370 Facebook followers. Now at least the figures make sense.

It’s a fine line between factual numbers and inflated ones. If I tweet fifty times a day with jokes about the Irish and also post my blog post, what are my followers on Twitter really following? My blog? I don’t think so. They merely find the blog posts on my twitter feed, and they can’t (as far as I know) shut them out if they want to read the jokes.

In practice, my tweets and Facebook postings are actually almost exclusively blog posts; therefore, in this case one can say the one who follows me on Twitter or Facebook does it exactly because he wants to read my blog posts; albeit there would be duplications and triplications here which WordPress might simply be ignoring.

Well, I had posted about this before, so I wanted to close this matter. It still seems a tad fishy to me. If “the Catholic religion has 1.1 billion followers” is counted in the same way, we are in deep trouble.

But hey: who am I to judge?

M

 

 

 

Gender “Choices”

The “Daily Homograph” (or, if you prefer, “Homo Telegraph”) informs us without a hint of reproach or disapproval that, after the “successful” introduction of around 70 “gender choices” in the US (one wonders how difficult it must have been; but again, for a “Homo Telegraph” journalist an awful lot must be difficult), Facebook has now introduced the same nonsensical “options” in the UK.

The same? Well, not really. As for these people “gender” is something they can shape as they please, the UK “gender choices” will be “limited” to 50, to take account of the different ways in which perversion and idiocy express themselves in the country. This will leave idiots and perverts with only 48 ways to let the world know they are perverts, or idiots. I find it limiting compared to the 70 or more ways available to their counterparts the other side of the Pond; but hey: if they “feel” that way who am I to, erm, judge?

You must think yours truly is utterly and completely opposed to the idea, but on second thoughts it has its advantages. I do not remember exactly how Facebook works, and when I forgot the password I let the thing go the way of the Dodo. I had only used it to post my blog posts, so it was no great loss. Still, I remember and have read around you can “befriend” or “unfriend” people. This means every Facebook member can immediately spot the perverts and idiots simply by looking at which kind of people they choose as “friends”, or at how they define their “gender” themselves.

Very practical, I would say.

Still, if Facebook belonged to me I would make the system even more practical, and reduce the “gender choices” to four; undoubtedly encompassing all the US choices, let alone the “limited” UK ones. They would be:

1. Male

2. Female

3. Pervert

4. Idiot.

There!

All the “genders”, in four simple choices.

M

Man Up

He didn't tweet.

I do not know whether this is an American thing, but I read around here and there, particularly in those that I would call the “sensitive” Catholic blogs, commenters complaining that they are insulted on Facebook or Twitter for upholding Christian values.

It is, I think, as if they would seek some sort of validation. “Sniff, sob, someone called me a bigot, and someone else even a … hater! Please, please Mr Blogger and dear commenters, tell me again this is not the case!”

Now, as Catholic I understand there are two sexes, and they are wired in a very different way. The more sensitive, more delicate and more emotional feminine mind may well be more easily upset from derogatory or outright insulting remarks; but when I read that grown men have the same reaction and seek the same emotional reassurance from the “sensitive support troops” I begin to be seriously alarmed at the damages the omnipresent culture of sensitivity and permanent emotional reinforcement has done to us.

It seems to me that some men all too often forget that God made them able to fight wars, to kill and be killed. I wonder how a man whose emotional stability is compromised, and perhaps the entire day ruined, by insults from people he doesn't even know would perform under enemy fire. What I can tell you for certain is that in my culture and generation merely to whine with third parties about what someone else has said about one's moral qualities would have attracted some not entirely unjustified remarks about one's manliness. Speaking of my blogging experience, I find my load of rubbish in the comment bin, and when it passes my spam wall I simply take care in future it doesn't; and the situation is still far more peaceful than at “Homo Smoke”, where the offences and insults were a daily occurrence (don't worry, I wasn't a pansy either). In the present day, Catholic men should, if you ask me, invite controversy, because in this day and age Christianity itself is controversial; far more so than it was the case in the West even during the Cold War, or the flippin' Seventies. Yes, it will cost some friendships; yes, it will cost confrontation, even with people we love, even within our own family. So be it, more deposits on our heavenly savings account; one day, that account will be cashed in.

When I was in elementary school, my teacher used to scold whining boys telling them to stop, because one day they must be fit to go to war. The same I heard from my father several times, so it must have been a staple of conservative boys education; and a wise way of educating a young man it was.

Our generation was fortunate enough not to have to go to war, but this does not mean that it was and is not confronted with serious conflicts, be it communism or secularism.

Christian men are born for combat, and Catholic ones must be twice ready for it. As a Christian, we will be insulted, belittled and mocked rather often. Good! It means we are doing it right. We are supposed to fight the good fight and shrug away insults and mockery; and let us call ourselves lucky enough we are not tested beyond that.

Our generation was not probed in battle. For Heaven's sake, let us not be said that Facebook, Twitter or a discussion forum are a hard probe.

Mundabor

 

Lennon, The Priest, And The Confirmation

 

 

I have read the “corrections” concerning the matter of the stupidly named boy “Lennon” and his even more stupid Facebook post and frankly find the attitude shown, of all people, by Catholics rather disturbing.

Firstly, it is good that a boy be denied Confirmation because in blatant conflict with Catholic values. It would be tragic if this were not the case. As a consequence, the subsequent news that the problems were antecedent to the posting do not change an iota in the fundamental matter.

Secondly, to accuse the liberal press of being slandering when stating the boy with the stupid name was excluded from confirmation because of the Facebook post is to imply that such a post would in itself not be a sufficient ground for refusal. Of course it is! If that isn’t, I truly do not know what is!

What transpires here is that the stupidly named boy had already given cause for concern, and the priest had – as he should – discussed the matter with his parents. But even so, it is clear that the Facebook post was a smoking gun that would have made the matter extremely thorny, and a valid confirmation under the circumstances impossible anyway. It was, therefore, for the boy a clear case of going before being kicked out, and I wonder that not many noticed this.

Please, please let us not start to relativise the importance of the sacraments ourselves: if the priest had denied the (stupidly named) boy confirmation purely and exclusively on the ground of the Facebook post, he would have done the only right thing anyway.

Let us call a spade a spade here, and a Sacrament a Sacrament. Quibbling about who walk away when does not help.

Mundabor

“Mundabor’s Blog” On Facebook

I had opened a facebook account some time ago, but I had never really used it other than to post my posts to the – I think it’s called – wall.

I have now decided to explore the world of facebook a bit better, and have therefore started to look around and to do stupid things while I learn how to use it properly.

In time, I might (unless this goes beyond my blogging pay grade) have one of those little thingies on the right hand column with “join me on Facebook”, or the like.

In the meantime, whoever finds facebook a more useful way to follow my blog (there will obviously be much more there, including links I liked, & Co.; again, I am just learning how it works) feel free to look for “Paul Eddington” and choose, among the many which will pop up, the one with the familiar Pope Pius XII photo.

Other than in real life, on facebook I have a very liberal “friends” policy and invite you to consider it as you would if you would follow me on Twitter; as a consequence, unless you are a self-professed atheist or otherwise unsound I will certainly accept you as “friend”, and you will then be able to follow on your facebook page what happens with my blog and my facebook activities.

Needless to say, I will not use this as a “private” activity of any kind, so you don’t need to be afraid to find the usual messages about “drinking a coffee now” (who cares a straw) and “feeling kinda happy” (ditto). The page will be used exclusively as an extension of the blog activities.

Mundabor

%d bloggers like this: