Counter-Currents
Me ne frego
Greg Johnson on Sargon, Nehlen, Bannon, & Trump
Greg Johnson
55 words / 1:48:39
Greg Johnson joins Fróði Midjord and Jonas De Geer on Me ne frego for a conversation about Sargon of Akkad’s debate with White Nationalism, what Paul Nehlen might be up to, Steve Bannon’s flameout, and what went wrong with the Trump administration.
Listen to “Me ne frego – episode 13 with Greg Johnson” on Spreaker.
8 comments
Trump should have read the story when Jacob swindle’s Laban and ruins the inheritance of Laban’s sons.
Laban oddly enough means “White”.
Watch out for the son in law. He’s often a snake.
“Liberal Creationsim”.
I like that.
Something that should have been mentioned is that Sargon is a decent man. I would even call him honorable. Unlike so many other leftists.
When you mentioned the start of the Jewish influence and power I couldn’t help but think of the change on the Christian perception of the Jews. The largest Baptist Church here in North Florida flies an Israel flag.
Regarding the libertarian position on IT corporations de-platforming dissidents: the assumption appears to be that the use of online media and financial services represents a voluntary contractual agreement between equal parties. Therefore, a user has no more right to demand access to information services than does an IT company have to force anyone to use their services.
But in the real world, private tyrannies can be just as repressive as public. More so, since the government (usually) has to follow some sort of due process before it can employ censorship, requiring wartime or emergency conditions. But an IT company can censor with the flick of a switch and not be answerable to anyone.
Part of the dilemma is that today’s libertarianism emerged in the mid-20th century where the US capitalist system reasonably played it by the rules. Monopolistic abuses of corporate power were checked by anti-trust enforcement or unions going on strike. There was also an element of economic nationalism and business pro-freedom rah rah. In that era before globalization the system appeared to be working, but in the 21st century we are in a different ballpark.
Ayn Rand states in one of her many essays that only the government can conduct censorship; this sentiment is echoed by many across the political spectrum, libertarian and others. Therefore, losing internet connection, online funding, employment and also, by extension, credit cards, utilities, access to healthcare or whatever because of one’s political views does not constitute censorship. The obvious rejoinder is that in the real world the loss, or threatened loss, of these things is sufficient to silence most people. So much for Free Markets = Free Minds!
I suspect part of the Randian argument goes back to that mid-20th century America where it was largely communists who were on the “outs.” Her argument in those days had the practical effect of marginalizing the critics of capitalism who lacked access to mass media. I wonder what would happen tomorrow if IT companies were to cut off all supporters of drug legalization, gun rights and private property? Would Cato and Reason still be willing to proclaim that only-government-can-censor? (In fairness, there are libertarians who see the IT companies as public utilities which ought to be regulated.)
One thing to consider is that IT companies are not private enterprise. Federal agencies such as the NSA and FBI work with IT companies to gather data on national security threats and to take action against computer criminals. And behind that is the massive amount of government investment in IT since at least the days of ARPANET. For a crash course, view online video of General Keith Alexander, former head of the NSA and US Cyber Command, addressing various seminars on cyberwar. He gives a pretty good picture of the IT-surveillance-corporate-state complex.
One final comment: the First Amendment refers to the Freedom of Speech; i.e., free speech is an absolute and while the government can not abridge it, neither ought any other entity. The Alt Right has a real opportunity here to pick up the banner of freedom. It’s a great tactic.
Great interview! I also felt like Sargon was trying to beg the question to make us look like the government in Orwell’s 1984. David Pakman begs the question in a video with Richard Spencer by asking Spencer how he’ll separate the races and then insinuates policies of eminent domain resemble the Holocaust. For some reason a lot of people ask leading questions in debates to try to either catch you in a contradiction or make you appear like their archetypal villain. Telling the truth is so much easier than playing these games. Let’s hope it’s as effective as you say.
Hello Greg, I noticed how Jonas and Frodi were moaning about your stand in the Jerusalem question. But you are completely right. If we are going to defend Iran, Russia and other nation’s their right to create and solve their problems, we cannot interfere with what city under Israeli control is used the country’s capital. Not even their behaviour towards their Palestinian population is our business. Of course, Palestine is occupied and the Palestinians are subdued and forced off their lands. But that isn’t happening for the first time in history, nor the last. If Israel should be confronted, we should talk to them about their nuclear missiles, with warheads capable of destroying Europe.
Great interview, Greg. One important talking point to reach libertarian normies is that it’s currently illegal for private citizens (let alone big corporations) to “discriminate” in ways the left doesn’t like, only in ways it does like. The biggest practical effect is that it becomes incredibly expensive to maintain a White-supermajority neighborhood, since you have to do it indirectly by jacking up housing prices so that Blacks can’t afford to live there. (And even that’s unstable with Section 8 and other forced-diversity programs trying to spread the diversity ever wider). Even middle-class Whites have to continually move to find their “good schools”, destroying social networks, consuming wealth, and taking away parents’ free time they could spend with their kids. (Lower-class Whites are often stuck with diworsity). Obviously, if the libertarians actually believe in free association for everyone, it’d be legal to make explicitly Whites-only communities. (In fact, it’s actually currently illegal for realtors to even mention crime stats in a neighborhood, lest that should give renters/buyers some inkling as to its racial makeup…tacitly admitting what we know from stats, that Blacks have an outsize violent crime rate)
Comments are closed.
If you have Paywall access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
Paywall Access
Edit your comment