Castanet

FreeRights wrote:I agree with you that protesting speech is fine. However, having speakers cancel their events due to safety issues, causing increased security, and essentially preventing people a platform is not fine.

Protesting in the means of blockading doors to prevent others from hearing it is not fine. This is the step between not agreeing with something, to preventing others from hearing it.

I also agree that if the best argument one can make to give a speak, is that it's legal, it's a weak argument. But an argument should not even be had, as they have a right to say it and people should be able to hear it. If a person has no platform, then nobody will attend. It absolutely disgusts me, even as a liberal, not even to see people protest speeches, but to see people from preventing others from seeing them.

It's a tough one. I feel that preventing such protesting is akin to preventing the speech it is intended to protest and neither should be prevented by the law of the land. There are many ways to get a platform where protests are unlikely to have an effect, and particularly so in modern times, to the point that I don't think that these protests are actually preventing anyone from having a platform. Maybe they prevent access to a particular platform, but I'm not sold on that being sufficient reason to interfere with the freedom of speech of protesting.

I think that these protests, especially those against the likes of Yiannopoulos, Shapiro, Peterson, etc. are self defeating. They almost certainly give these speakers a larger audience, more coverage and do nothing to prevent the further dissemination of these speakers' rhetoric. In these cases, such speakers could want nothing more than to be protested against, especially violently, as it turns them from fringe speakers into celebrities. It wouldn't entirely surprise me if some actively encouraged such protests to get the coverage they seem to crave, but I certainly have no evidence of this. To me it is sad that these of the thinkers that those on the right turn to. Can't we get back to the likes of Friedman and other thinkers?

Erased history: how Rockefeller bankrolled Soviet Russia

Forgotten history: US bankers financing US enemies—and why it is important now

by Jon Rappoport

August 6, 2018

In 1971, Gary Allen published his book, None Dare Call it Conspiracy. It quickly became an unofficial best seller.

Over the years, several million copies have been sold.

Allen’s thesis was stark: super-rich American capitalists were financing socialism. This bizarre paradox was resolved when socialism was properly understood—not as “power to the people”—but as elite power over the people. In other words, as a hoax.

These days, the socialist hoax is still unknown to most of the population.

Cloak a global power grab as progress for all of humanity.

Here, from chapter six of None Dare Call it Conspiracy, “The Rockefellers and the Reds,” is a devastating passage commenting on the period just after the Russian Revolution of 1917:

“The Rockefellers assigned their public relations agent, Ivy Lee, to sell the American public the idea that the Bolsheviks were merely misunderstood idealists who were actually kind benefactors of mankind.”

“Professor Antony Sutton of Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, notes in his highly authoritative Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development:”

https://www.blacklistednews.com/article ... oviet.html

History is written by the winners. Decent people need to take control. Suppress all socialist ideas. Stop feeding the worthless. Stop all welfare. All handouts. Make em work. Or let em starve.

Jflem1983 wrote: Suppress all socialist ideas. Stop feeding the worthless. Stop all welfare. All handouts.

No bailouts for the farmers! Damn communists!

Ya! Decent people should take charge and eliminate the worthless! Hit by a car? Too bad, off to the ice floes with you! Company goes broke and closes a plant? Ah well, you had a good run, RIP.

You do know that Objectivism was an unworkable Randian wet dream, right? Our society depends upon ensuring the people at the bottom don’t get crushed *too* hard, otherwise we’d descend into lawless anarchy, right?