Picard578 wrote: ↑
Wed Sep 16, 2020 6:07 pm
Mith wrote: ↑
Tue Sep 15, 2020 1:00 am
Picard578 wrote: ↑
Mon Sep 14, 2020 8:49 am
When it comes to Spacebattles, I got permabanned for posting about how Left is promoting pedophilia. Lo and behold, 2020. came and so did "Cuties
". The only reason why I regret not being on SpaceBattles anymore is that I will not be able to say "I told you so".
That's going to, believe or not, cause further divisions within the DNC.
Anyway, the people from the Mega PM got together and made a new site. One that promotes freedom of speech. Like any good God fearing people.
Excellent news, though it is a question of how long it will stay that way...
For decades at least. The radicalization of SB occurred due to the perceived threat of alternative messages to leftist ideology. It's bad enough that actual liberals are moving away from them. SB will, if it keeps the course, shrink its own base because it has shifted to an exclusive policy of what sort of ideology is acceptable.
The Sietch is an inclusive policy, because it's more center of American politics, albeit leaning more heavily on the right side. An important note though, is that the broad support of freedom of speech comes from all sorts of people, who although are right leaning, are from different dominate culture regions of the US. You have people from Tidewater, Far West, Appalachia, and Yankeedom that I can name off hand who strongly support freedom of expression.
The major censorship you see now is because the old structure of power is in collapse. The ideology that was established during World War II and the Cold War has lost its hold on the American public. American politics were bipolar; you had the Neo Conservatives who more adhered to realism and you had the Neo Liberals, who more often adhered to liberal ideology. Although both disagreed on the approach of addressing the world, they were both globalists.
The current Republican party is an accumulation of anti-globalists, which has risen to prominence because the of two main factors. First, the threat of the Soviet Union is now gone. That may seem to have little to do with anything, but it's actually a major reason of why someone like Trump was able to win the White House. The US initiated Free Trade (the protection of all markets to participate with other markets with US Naval protection, as well as low barriers into the US market) as a bribe to Europe and later the rest of the world, in its containment strategy of the Soviet Union. The US's only real essential economic partners are Mexico and Canada. There are others of interest, such as Japan, South Korea, UK, Australia, and so forth--but they're not essential to our economy.
And that brings us to the second reason why we're pulling back; geo-economics. Geo-economics is basically a fancy way of expressing how countries compete in the market place, offering advantages to their own people over those of other nations. And while the US was the big winner in geo-strategy, it was one of the biggest losers in geo-economics. Because part of the deal was that the US would open its markets to competitors to allow them to export their way back to wealth. But with no strategic threat from the Soviet Union, the US wasn't getting anything out of the deal. All while countries like France demanded we rename our cheeses and wines when selling into France in order to protect their own markets. Or asking that we do the same within the US itself. Or Canada's absurd dairy tariffs to protect its domestic market. Or China, using low-skill, low-wage labor to draw American factories to China. These are all examples of geo-economics or as more people might call it, protectionism.
These, along with various other issues, such as the EU trying to screw us with the Euro. The US dollar was its geo-economic method of ensuring some degree of fair trade and compliance with its geo-strategic needs and the Euro was a direct challenge to that. Or China's constant military aggression in the South China Sea. China is only able to be a modern world power because the US protects its trade and keeps its market open. And yet China, who is one of the most aggressively protectionist countries of all, is using the very wealth we grant them to challenge our geo-strategic system. Or Europe dragging its heels and denouncing the US's wars in the Middle East. Or the constant complaints of militarism from said countries. And the terrorist attacks, in which Saudi Arabia supports the very terrorist cells that the US has had to, time and time again, destroy.
In short, the US is moving from where it was (pursuing a geo-strategic objective) to where it is now (pursuing both a geo-strategic and geo-economic objective) because the basis for American globalism was not a desire for imperialism, but rather security against a imperialistic (if communist) threat. And now that this threat is gone (and has been for about 30 years now), the old political mindset of globalist/free trade outlook (the establishment) has lost favor. Which brings us to the establishment.
The establishment began around WWII and the Cold War. It was a mixture of Russian containment combined with American ideology; both realist, conservative, and liberal. And it has taught the way "things really are" to their heirs for almost a century. And now we have technocrats who have spent 40-60 years following this worldview coming to the sudden realization that the American public is not having it. On both ends of the political spectrum. And their response to protect their globalist utopia is to try and suppress those that would tear it down.
Which is a long way of saying; the Sietch is part of the new mode of US thinking, where as SB is trying to protect the old way. Hence, it is within the Sietch's best interest to be a free speech platform for at least the next 80 years, because that's probably how long the new islolationist/protectionist/nationalist mindset will last.