Monday, April 03, 2017

Coordinated Hit On "Hate"

"That's a nice family you have there. It'd be a shame if they went starving because you lost your job," so goes the modern progressive means of debating and persuading ideological or simply debate opponents. This has become the sole means that the Left has in preventing dissent out in the open. They redefine hate down to sneezing in the direction of a progressive pet voter bloc, and suddenly, you go silent at work. This is expanding after election 2016, because the game simply did not work as well. They are targeting the last bastions of dissent coordination: the online internet coffeehouses.

Twitter and Facebook can use outright censorship to ban anyone they want at any time. The problem still comes down to those that simply voice dissent. How oh how can the progs shut them down? Forget debate. Forget outright removal, for now. Simply starve them of money. It works with individuals, so it should work with websites right?

Breitbart has had the, ahem, semitic money attack despite rising clicks and page rankings. Pewdiepie was booted from a deal. Now a coordinated hitjob by both the Wall St Journal and Washington Post are going after the clicks that dissident websites get. Both articles talk about the problem of online ads going to hate sites. Corporate ad spending funds hate, but not the good kind of hate like anti-white hate, but the bad, intolerable hate. Shucks, how are we going to deal with Coca Cola and Chevy having ads on My Posting Career?!?! Seriously, MPC got a mention in WaPo, and got a fake line about WaPo reaching out for comment. WaPo lied.

It did not stop there though. The Fake News bug bit the legacy media again. Jack Nicas was busted by intrepid amateurs for using fake screengrabs. The entire narrative is being drafted up to get large platforms to overreact and then deny anyone even remotely close to the evil, hateful content any money. Besides money, this will then have the platforms implementing programs that scan for anything close to hate in the content and then autoblocking or removing said content. These articles are to get their audiences and the normies who may hear about this as it is picked up in even broader media outlets to approve squashing dissidents under the guise of stopping hate.

The news flash to the legacy media is plainly stated by Richard Spencer in one of the articles: there is no meaningful ad revenue funding the far right. it actually worked in the opposite direction.
Ha said he had blocked three of the extremist sites after being contacted by The Post. One of them, the neo-Confederate site Occidental Dissent, used the development to make a public call for more donations, earning what site founder Brad Griffin said was about $1,000 — several times more than the advertisements had produced in recent months. 
“It worked out nice for me,” Griffin said.


Breitbart would have true worries compared to MPC or these fringe sites. Most of these dissident sites thanks to the forum set up or comment boards are more like coffeehouses for chatting than pure news media sites. Our news media is reading the crime blotters, FBI stats, welfare usage numbers, etc., in short, measurable facts. This is what the progs do not get.

The progs can never admit that they own every single institution in this dying regime. They are the media and the media is them. They own the only revenue generating media outlets. They have forced all dissidents out to platforms that make little to no revenue. The Daily Shoah with its listener base should have been generating more revenue like the Chapo House left wing idiots, but there is no money in this.

Therein lies another thing the progs do not grasp. This is their job. We all do this on the side. For some of us, we see the existential crisis of the West and react. It is a passion. Richard Spencer is not going to take the abuse he gets for adsense revenue. The bright men of MPC are not in this for e-shekels. We have day jobs, but we still outsmart and outmaneuver them. The progs still do not get it.

That ignorance is a good thing.

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

There is a problem with these sites insofar as they rely on social media to get their message out. If a site were to be suspended on Twitter, Facebook, and Youtube, how would that effect their operations? You are right to point out that these sites aren't in it for the money, but to be cut off from the big social media players would hurt very much nonetheless.

MPC Shrill said...

There is a problem with these sites insofar as they rely on social media to get their message out. If a site were to be suspended on Twitter, Facebook, and Youtube, how would that effect their operations?

The Achiles Heel of these sites' attempts to silence outside-the-mainstream voices is their dependence on traffic/content. They NEED as many users as possible to join and start making and sharing content, and so it's very easy for banned posters to re-register under names similar to the ones that were banned. In fact, this might be the secondary goal of, say, Twitter. You're upping your new user count at a time when everyone who has even the slightest interest in the site already has an account.