/mlpol/ - My Little Politics

Fucking based.
These Kikes have had it far too good for far too long.

>>221602
Awesome. About time.

About fucking time.

>>221602
yes. good. bust 'em up.

>>221602
I'm suspicious as to what they are trying to do here.

>>221614
Well, these are three acts by three completely different legal entities, so there is plenty of room for a variety of motives being involved.

>>221615
>three completely different legal entities
You mean three different apparatuses of Z O G

>>221614
They could be trying to make a tiny change that'll make these big companies seem fairer on paper, while changing nothing in reality.

>>221617
Sure. Jews have as much or more power than the Christian idea of God, being perfectly omnipotent and perfectly omnipresent, so that every human being from Texas to India, in every action they do, serves the will of Jews as a collective entity. If an action looks as if it is contrary to the power and control of Jews, it is only because your little gentile mind lacks the wisdom to match the unified intellect and wisdom of the Jew. For everything that happens, whether it seems good, evil, or indifferent, is really just the preordained work of the Jews working towards Jewish interests.

Give me a break. Jews are not God. Jews are not Omnipotent, they are not Omnipresent, they are not Omniscient, they are not infinitely wise, not everything that happens is a predetermined plan to benefit the interests of Jews, and they are not simultaneously many-individuals-but-one-perfect-whole like the damned Christian Trinity. Jews are not Supermen.
\r

>>221625
Lmao, whether you wish to believe it or not. they are in control fam.

>>221602
I won't complain about anything that removes power from big tech, but that Apple lawsuit is just dumb. The App Store is a monopoly because it's the only place to legally buy iPhone apps (not counting Cydia, which is conveniently ignored)? It's not like iOS is the only smartphone OS in existence. Heck, I don't think it's even the biggest. Does that make every video game console its own monopoly since they each only have one digital store? Is any retailer that sells its own exclusive products a monopoly?

>>221602
I think its important to keep in mind they aren't ruling for or against any monopoly busting, instead they are simply ruling that it is reasonable to challenge apple. Apple is arguing that they can't be sued because they aren't the seller which is total bullshit because they are making 30% commission off of it.

Here is the text from the SC opinion

>Apple Inc. sells iPhone applications, or apps, directly to iPhone ownersthrough its App Store—the only place where iPhone owners may law-fully buy apps. Most of those apps are created by independent developers under contracts with Apple. Apple charges the developers a $99 annual membership fee, allows them to set the retail price of theapps, and charges a 30% commission on every app sale. Respondents, four iPhone owners, sued Apple, alleging that the company has unlawfully monopolized the aftermarket for iPhone apps. Apple moved to dismiss, arguing that the iPhone owners could not sue be-cause they were not direct purchasers from Apple under Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois, 431 U. S. 720. The District Court agreed, but the Ninth Circuit reversed, concluding that the iPhone owners were di-rect purchasers because they purchased apps directly from Apple.

>>221620
This definitely could be the case, but it suggests that the general trend for the future is more favorable than at present.

Take for instance the US Supreme Court decision. The United States previously had a fairly robust set of competition law in the Sherman Act and the Clayton Act. However, these laws were gutted by the Supreme Court in the 1980s and 90s, making them largely ineffective to handle the modern tech monopolies in the way that these same laws could have in the 1940s. The problem has been that the “conservative” side of US politics has been extremely corporation friendly in Anti-trust matters, and the US Supreme Court has been controlled by a “conservative” majority for almost three decades. This case is sort of a breakthrough because the Corporation - a tech giant - lost, and the consumer won, a scenario that was not possible just a year ago. The difference is that Justice Brett Kavanaugh siding with the 4 liberals in this opinion. It suggests that future anti-trust legislation against tech giants has a real chance of succeeding.

The Texas law is more significant, because it would be a law against the censorship itself. The proposed law is an extension of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, a law which, among 30 other provisions, bans firms of false advertising, and takes the position that advertising a site as unbiased while censoring posts and advertisements based on opinion is false advertising. This is the first proposed law against the political censorship on social media. In this instance, Facebook. No, I do not believe that this law will be passed. But there are many state legislatures in the US, and this proposal shows that at least some law makers are interested in doing something about political censorship on Social media. It shows a way forward that makes things better.

The India news shows more resistance to the tech monopolies in places it wasn’t quite expected. This is probably because Android is 99% of the market in India, and because as an American company they probably have no particular fondness to it anyways. Resistance is growing.

>>221626
Go worship your masters if you have nothing substantial to contribute.

>>221627
The claim is that the 30% share Apple takes hurts consumers. This decision didn’t win the lawsuit for the plaintiffs, it just allows the suit to go forward, and eventually go before a jury.

>>221628
True, but see my text from above in this comment. What makes this opinion meaningful is that it shows that the present US Supreme Court is willing to side with consumers on an Anti-trust case, which actually has not been true for most of recent history, and suggests that the Supreme Court may not get in the way of future anti-trust action against these corporations.

>>221629
Fuck Off, are all conservatives as brainwashed as you? How Can you just straight up deny reality?

>>221630
>Deny reality
>Claims India is completely owned by Zionists with zero evidence
Dude, the only argument you’ve proposed for your position is “it happened, so it must be evil.” You’ve offered no plausible argument as to how each of these three events helps Jews, or how this guy in Texas and the government of India have anything to do with Jews.

I don’t give a shit if, in your mind, I am a heretic for not having blind faith in the power and glory of the divine plan all Jews have for the inferior races, because I don’t take blind faith to be an argument. Offer an argument and evidence, or shut up.

>>221625
>For everything that happens, whether it seems good, evil, or indifferent, is really just the preordained work of the Jews working towards Jewish interests. --- ( /s for sarcasm should be added ) ---
>Give me a break.
I believe that, Yes!, indeed the the sinister hand of the jews are behind of almost everything.
They control the leadership of every Western country, which make laws to rule us, which are interpreted by judges appointed by that leadership, which is enforced at gunpoint by our neighbors wearing an uniform on the leadership payroll.
Not convinced yet?
Tell me what happens when a gentile is massacred. Nothing remarkable, just a few patrols and detectives, and at most, a few lines in the judenpresse. But if the massacred is a jew... well, the whole police force is mobilized, the mayor make public speeches, the (((leadership))) spring into action, new rules are implemented and multiple bodyguards are deployed on the goyim dime.
On the public awareness front, everything the people know is because the judenpresse tells them what is convenient to their interests and what they have to think and feel. This is reinforced by the entertainment industry also controlled by jews.
Also, the indoctrination factory called schools and colleges play a very remarkable role imprinting beliefs and behaviors to submit to the rulers and their authority figures.
So, when you dismiss the Semitic infiltration and how effectively permeates every layer of our societies, you are being naive at least.

>>221629
>True, but see my text from above in this comment. What makes this opinion meaningful is that it shows that the present US Supreme Court is willing to side with consumers on an Anti-trust case, which actually has not been true for most of recent history, and suggests that the Supreme Court may not get in the way of future anti-trust action against these corporations.

I agree. Regardless of motives I think its hilarious Kavanaugh voted against those neocons.

>>221630
>>221626
>>221617
This shit is why Nat Socs never get anywhere. EVERYTHING is da joos! all day all the time. Whether it is true in one instance or not is entirely irrelevant. When your entire action platform is "gas the jews" that isn't going to get anywhere, especially in America.

>>221625
Thats just what a jew would say
Kidding, I agree

>>221638
>EVERYTHING is da joos! all day all the time
It is curious.
In /leftypol/, and perhaps of the word filter is place, the word JEW or KIKE never ever is used, but instead the employ "joos" and dismiss the idea of their guilt.
Isn't it commie?

One one hand I guess I should keep up appearances and reeee at "government regulations", but honestly? I'm fine with this. Monopolies are hard cause you want a free market, but they just kinda absorb the market and squash anyone else. So you either have the market regulate the monopolies or the monopolies regulate the market.

>Apple and android anti-trust
I'm kinda out of the loop on this one, but from what it looks like it's just "hey, you can't be a dick just because you're the only ones that sell apps", please correct me if I'm mistaken. If I'm right this is kinda good. It could go one of three ways
>The suit wins, another app-store is allowed to be created
>The suit wins, they can't be dicks about what they have on the store
>the suit doesn't win, still draws attention to the problem
Obviously the suit winning would be the best case scenario, and I would prefer if another app-store was allowed to be created. Why? Competition, plain and simple.

>Texas law against censorship on Social Media
Now this is one I do know about, and honestly I want the bill to pass. Normally the idea of the government telling individuals or corporations is bad in my eyes What a shock, an AnCap against government regulations, I know but sites like Facebook and Twitter are different. They advertise themselves as platforms for people to have an opinion. Then they don't like your opinions and you're banned. For a platform that is supposed to connect people across the globe and allow them to interact censorship seems pretty counter-intuitive, plus it's gay.

But you know, just my two cents.

>>221646
Really makes you think.

>>221636
>indeed the the sinister hand of the jews are behind of almost everything.
There’s a difference between saying “all western nations have Jewish influence” and “literally every political action of any kind undertaken by any nation is for the benefit of Jews.”
Like, is everything Jewish to you?

>They control the leadership of every Western country
Okay...? One if the three developments above involves India. India isn’t a Western nation. Even if that statement were true, well, it doesn’t apply to India.

Also, it’s one thing to claim the presidency and all of Congress is controlled by Jews. After all, they have very expensive election campaigns. It’s easy to see where the influence would come from. But the Texas law is proposed by a single state senator. There are easily thousands of state senators and representatives across the 50 states, and most of them do not have expensive campaigns. How are state legislators being controlled? More importantly, how are every single one of them being controlled? This is not a very plausible claim.

>Tell me what happens when a gentile is massacred
If he’s black, one hell of a lot more than when a Jew is killed
What does this have to do with this thread? This thread is about anti-trust and censorship issues in two nations.

>On the public awareness front, everything the people know is because the judenpresse tells them
Then why would it be in the interest of the Jews to have a state senator in Texas propose a bill making it illegal to censor posts and advertisements based on political opinion? Isn’t it obviously in the Jews’ favor to continue to censor posts? This doesn’t make any sense as applied.

>Also, the indoctrination factory called schools and colleges play a very remarkable role imprinting beliefs and behaviors to submit to the rulers and their authority figures.
What dies this have to do with India?
And then why are they letting people sue large corporations, or question the tech monopolies?

>effectively permeates every layer of our societies, you are being naive at least.
>our societies
Again, one of these is from India, not one of our societies.

How is it in the Jew’s interests for India to sue Google for Anti-trust? Is Google the enemy of Jews? Obviously not, because then why would they let Google get so powerful in the first place. Does suing Hoogke benefit Jews? If so, then it is Jews fighting Jews, which breaks the sacred principle of Jews-are-a-perfect-unity-and-never-disagree-with-or-fight-each-other.

Look, if you want to claim that this bill in Texas or the investigation in India are Jewish plots, then give arguments and evidence as to why and how. Because these don’t make any sense.

>>221654
With all the deals major corporations like these have with various governments, they can hardly be considered private entities at all. They're de facto for-profit government entities, really.

>>221676
You do make a good point. They really are swollen to a point where you can't really call them normal provate entities.

>>221676
>>221687
Doesn't that make them fascist?

>>221602
Honestly should have been done sooner, many of these companies took US government funding to get off the ground, which in part makes them a public venture which should be held accountable to it (the american public).

>>221646
>>221655
Ya got me, I'm a lefty poll hack here to shill and show dissent. Perhaps I shouldn't of been so blunt but I'm annoyed because >>221625 isn't even denying jewish influences. Instead he is simply arguing their extent of influence in this specific situation. All you guys can come back with is that he is ignorant if he doesn't think this whole thing isn't a song and dance put on by jews to give an illusion of their non control. In general I'm annoyed with Nat Socs because their constant sperging out about jews will never gain political traction and they will continue to be ostracized by normies and used as a "racist" scapegoat for the left to attack whites, enact speech laws, and even further the holocaust obsession in education. Meanwhile their political organization continues to accomplish absolutely nothing other than scuffles with the local anarchist rabble. Anytime anyone in the dissident right calls attention to anything it can be dismissed as jewish plots or jewish scheming. That's the kind of discussion that gets nowhere. I'd be like me refusing to talk and saying everything you said was controlled opposition.

>>221689
I'd say no because fascists value the interests of the national state, modern corporations are generally anti nationalist in order to dodge regulations, exploit the third world, and undercut first world jobs. Not to mention the whole diversity marketing bandwagon.

>>221728
I think you're misconstruing Fascism (a merger of state and corporate interests) with Nationalism

>>221728
I'm in the same boat, sure Jews aren't a political ally and the sooner conservatives get this in our heads the better. That doesn't mean we should sperg out about it and blab on about dah Joos left and right. The thing I've found myself getting the most annoyed about is that even on things that don't really involve them we hear about them to no end on. Anti-Trust court case. JEWS! It makes no sense in this regard really, and so many /pol/-esc threads are derailed here and on /pol/ because nat-socs need to sperg about Jews. I'm really getting sick of it since it inhibits good discussion. Do Jews lie? Yes. Are they a good political ally? No, not really. Does that mean we need to talk about them every opportunity we get? Of course not.

>>221728
>>221734
>jews
Well anons, wherever you turn there are jews, and to avoid to name them won't help for their removal.
Also your idea that naming the jew is tiresome and counter productive is a fantasy or a deliberate lie. Day after day the redpilling intensifies and the global pogrom is getting closer.
Go ahead, delude yourself and think that normies will run away, because of those, everyday there are fewer. In any case, Dr. Pierce explained very well the Lemming's mind and how they are of no consequence to our cause.
NatSoc ideas are growing exponentially. I wonder why /s.

It looks to me like we need a JQ thread for some of the topics brought up here.

>>221748
Do it.

>>221736
>Well anons, wherever you turn there are jews, and to avoid to name them won't help for their removal.
There is an ocean of difference between saying “Jews have influence of a negative nature in essentially every facet of Western Civilization” and “every single action under taken by every non-Jew on the planet, whether they are important or unimportant, white or an Indian living in India, no matter what it is, or what the logical consequences are, is controlled and directed by Jews to the adversity of Western Civilization.”

If you want to “name the Jew” then please name the Jews who are involved and how this hurts Western Civilization in the long run. This is easy enough in the case if the Supreme Court decision as three of the five justice majority - Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kagan - were are Jewish, though I believe they inadvertently helped our cause, and that’s Brett Kavanaugh were the only person sitting outside on that court who knew and cared about the implications of tech monopolies.

Please, tell me, who are the Jews influencing the proposed bill in Texas? How does this bill help the Jewish cause? How does this harm ours?

Who are the Jews in India? How does this help Jews as a whole? How does this hurt us?

Answer these questions, or else you are just falling into “everything that happens is according to the Divine Providence of the Jewish People.”

Regardless of if you believe in ZOG or not, keep in mind that there are certain (((interest groups))) that may be interested in highjacking this movement and turning it into a call for more internet censorship/regulation, so it's important to pay attention to these kinds of issues.
I'd like to see Jewgle and Faceberg given a black eye as much as everyone else, but I always take regulatory proposals with a grain of suspicion.

>>221736
>Well anons, wherever you turn there are jews, and to avoid to name them won't help for their removal.
That isn't the point, the point is your derailing the thread and a good number of anons do this again and again. Its annoying so either talk about it when its relevant and makes sense or fuck off.
>>221760
In my opinion Jews aren't the real problem. A people have the Jews they deserve.

>>221733
A lot of people confuse these terms this because they wrongfully fascism together with national socialism, despite the fact that they are indeed separate concepts that do not necessarily go together.
I wouldn't call tech corporations fascist though. A good indicator that they are not is that these tech companies use the advantages their monopolies to act with relative impunity from governments, and have done so in ways that gave angered said governments to the point where we're finally starting to see some regulatory measures being proposed.

>>221736
>Well anons, wherever you turn there are fascists, and to avoid to name them won't help for their removal.
>Also your idea that naming the fash is tiresome and counter productive is a fantasy or a deliberate lie. Day after day the redpilling intensifies and the global pogrom is getting closer.
>Go ahead, delude yourself and think that normies will run away, because of those, everyday there are fewer. In any case, Dr. Pierce explained very well the Lemming's mind and how they are of no consequence to our cause.
>Socialist ideas are growing exponentially. I wonder why /s.
FTFY famagotchi.
No, no need to thank me. Just doing my civic duty!

But in all honesty, if I were one of these fabled Jew overlords, I'd be criminally insulted by how little credit you were giving me here. I mean, all that effort to plant those ideas in your squishy malleable goyim head, and you don't even give your sources credit? Ungrateful little shit.
And by the way, NatSoc ideas are not growing exponentially, at least not with Gen Z. Merchant memes and Hitler jokes? Absolutely. Actual NatSoc ideas? Not even considered. If you'd like to know the reason why that is, please consult your nearest mirror.

On the topic of big tech censorship, this just happened.

>Anon makes le randumb anti-semitic comment that you see at the top of every /pol/ thread
>Other Anon responds with a fucking wall of text, instead of making his own goddamn thread about Jews
>Two anons bicker, more anons join the clusterfuck, and thread is effectively derailed because neither will let the other faggot have the last word
I thought we were supposed to be better than this?

>>221771
Can I get some context to this?

>>221772
I’m tired of literally any subject being discussed anywhere on this website being derailed and deflected by “everything good is Z.O.G.”

>>221771
Make a new thread explaining this.

>>221773
Soph is a teenage YouTuber. She apparently is sick often, so she spent a lot of her childhood online and basically got redpilled. She makes edgy videos where she jokes about Muslims, feminist whores, and leftists without worrying about what they will say about it. Recently, she made a video where saying that SJWs are a mindless mob of mental and physical weaklings with no individuality who cannot directly argue or fight, so they make their opponents feel insecure of their social status so they censor themselves. Joe Bernstein, a Jewish Buzzfeed writer, (and a mental and physical weakling,) apparently found out about this and decided to raise the alarm, calling her an indoctrinated evil alt-right extremist out to spread evil nahdzee propoganda, and saying YouTube needs to censor her and other thoughtcriminals, "because muh impressionable children!" Within 24 hours, her platform to speak on YouTube is torn away. Oh yeah, and Joe Bernstein is also largely behind the effort to get MDE: World Peace taken off the air, and he's attacked PewDiePie too.

>>221774
It takes two sides arguing to derail a thread. Neither side is ever going to convince the other, so there's no point in discussing it further just so you can have the last fucking word about it.

And for the record, trying to make the "Jews aren't all that bad" argument is just asking to derail a thread in a /pol/ community, even if Jews were brought into the discussion without context. It just fucking happens: Pic related.

>>221776
She sounds pretty based. Anywhere I can find her remaining videos?

>>221778
https://www.bitchute.com/channel/RXA1oESUqP1c/
This is her Bitchute

>>221777
No one here made a “Jews aren’t all that bad” argument so that isn’t relevant.

I don’t really care. I made this thread, and when I see the whole topic just disregarded because of blatant idiocy like “all actions of non-Jews actually serve Jewish interests no matter what” without evidence or argument, I am going to explain, very carefully, why it is idiocy and irrelevant.

>>221772
>instead of making his own goddamn thread about Jews
You made the suggestion, and from experience, nobody on this site makes a thread after being prompted to. Be the change you want to see.
>because neither will let the other faggot have the last word
Close, but not quite.
The real underlying issue is that egos get in the way, and nobody wants to take an L.
Crow's a rather acquired taste, or so I'm told. I'm rather partial to it myself though.
>I thought we were supposed to be better than this?
New here, I take it?
>>221777
>/pol/ community
Objectively false, the reason for which should be immediately obvious in the board name.

>>221779
Nice.

>>221776
>he's attacked PewDiePie too.
Is he one of those idiots who took the NZ "subscribe to PewDiePie" joke seriously?

>>221781
>>221782
My underlying point is that sometimes it's better to ignore people whome you think are idiots or have bad opinions than it is to engage them. Internet arguments, especially anonymous ones, are more often than not just exercises in futility, so there's no point in dragging them out.
Shitposters and baiters happen, but sometimes it's a waste of breath to argue with them because arguing with idiots bumps bait threads and derails otherwise-fine discussions; and that goes for chansites as a whole.

>>221784
He attacked PewDiePie before that.

>>221785
>sometimes it's better to ignore people whome you think are idiots or have bad opinions than it is to engage them
As patently false in reality as it is on the Internet. Ignoring only succeeds in both making the userbase look like submissive bitches who tolerate that kind of behaviour, and gives the "idiots" the false notion that their arguments are so good, so widely accepted, that there's simply no counterpoint to be made against them.
You'd do well to remember that Internet arguments, especially anonymous ones, are read by more people than just the ones making the exchange in the first place. So long as they're public, they're never exercises in futility.
Your personal gratification with the outcome is entirely irrelevant. The thread will go in whatever direction it goes in. Your defeatist attitude is noted, however.

>>221785
If this were only the first or the third time ZOG posting has tried to shut down any on-topic argument in the thread, then sure, it would be just fine to ignore these posts and try to discuss around them. But it isn’t. This has been happening repeatedly to the degree it makes discussion on most political issues difficult. The first time I noticed it to a large degree was in the discussion of the Pittsburg shooting where any criticism of the shooting was shutdown as Jewish and the shooting of police officers described as “okay, because those are ZOG Bots. The thread about the Tarrant Shooting was overrun by a pair claiming that the shooting was definitely the work of Mossad, and anyone who disagreed was a Jewish shill. The thread on the State of the Union was attacked by a particularly ornery set of ZOG posters, and now I don’t even bother to post threads anymore about most US Domestic politics because of people who will just dismiss literally anything that happens as “ZOG.” Though I never participate in threads about religion, a similar fate has befallen most threads about religion in this site. It’s “x religion is Jewish” “Nu uh! Your religion is Jewish” with obviously no real arguments for either position. We also had the Ernest thread.

Ignoring a problem and pretending it doesn’t exist usually works. But it hasn’t gone away on its own, and I’m tired of the threads I make having their entire contents dismissed as “ZOG” or really, any argument or event dismissed as “the work of Jews” when the poster making the claim has neither argument nor evidence to support the position. People who claim this bullshit ought to be put to task every time they claim it. They ought to explain with argument and evidence precisely why they think X actually favors Jewish interests, why Y is ZOG, and so forth.

I did make a thread. I made this thread. And I am trying to protect the integrity and topicality of the thread by telling everyone who just dismisses all three of the incidents in the OP to explain exactly how the proposed Texas law, or the Government of India, are working to favor Jews, or else shut up.
\r

>>221789
>>221788
Christ almighty how hard is it to make a thread? Here >>221790 → go talk about all of that here instead.

>>221791
I meant to respond to >>221785 >>221788 and >>221789

>>221763
>derailing the thread
Naaah.
We have a couple of (((commies))) trying to control the discourse under the pretext that is off topic or "not all the jews". Also putting their "feelings" on front to demonstrate dismay.
This tactic is known and used over and over again on other chans. If a commentary about kikes "derail" the thread is because those same weak faggots are hooked to it. Just ignoring the jew naming will remedy their complaints.

>>221822
>not all Jews
You can’t even get the logical ordering of the statements right. Literally no one here at all has claimed that “not all Jews are bad.” We’re saying that Indian people aren’t fucking Jewish, which should be so obvious that it doesn’t need to be stated.

We’re saying #Not all Gentiles.

>>221823
>Literally no one here at all has claimed that “not all Jews are bad.
What about >>221751 >If you want to “name the Jew” then please name the Jews who are involved
This drive to name individual jews is to split hairs with the purpose to not blame the tribe.

>>221826
No, I’m not saying that any Jews involved are not bad, I’m saying that no Jews at all are involved in either the Texas bill or Indian government affair.

The Texas Senate bill is proposed by a man named “Bryan Hughes,” which is a very white name, and there’s not that much reason to think any one else is involved. There is no reason to think Jews have anything to do with this. If you have evidence otherwise, or some reason to think it would benefit them, then let’s hear it, but until then, shut up. The same with India, which is a non-western country with no history of Jews in government.

Prove that Jews are involved

>>221789
I do admire your commitment to holding others feet to the fire, anon. For what it's worth, I'm sorry the thread was derailed in this way yet again.

Anyway, I'll be heading to bed now. When I come back, I fully expect 5496e (of >>219993 → fame) and friends to do literally everything in their power to justify themselves, project wildly, literally anything but admit any form of wrongdoing on their part.
Seriously, is it really so hard to just eat the fucking crow and let it go?

>>221625
>>221634
I get you, i used to get annoyed by it, but now i just laugh and joke about it, like when Stephen Hillenburg passed out, i blamed the jews.

>>221602
Now about this whole thing, i don't really think this will go big, maybe it'll work for Texas at some extent(it'll just help cuckservatives), and it seems possible that India pull that off.(Don't forget about corruption in India)

>>221828
>Prove that Jews are involved
I don't have to; kikes' involvement in government and finance is the default setting for any Western company, or a not Western company dealing with the West. In any case, (you) prove me wrong.
In any case I am stating the obvious, but you ignore for… reasons.

>>221789
I missed this post OP.
I believe your complaint about ZOG posters is based on opposing realities.
A zog poster believes that the news about any western government are fake or irrelevant because those governments are impostors and lack legitimacy, democracy is a sham, and most politicians are clowns serving interests behind the curtains. Therefore, it is natural that your threads will be taken lightly or dismissed.
Sorry about that.

>>221835
It’s not even a “non western company dealing with the West.” It’s a non-Western government.

Why would Jews break big tech monopolies, and why would they pass laws against censorship on Facebook? They wouldn’t. Bryan Hughes is a White guy. And India is fucking India. The fact that these actions help our position and hurt theirs is proof enough that zero Jews were involved.

>>221833
Censorship on Social Media affects pretty much everyone right of the Left, but it’s heavier the further right you go. I think it would have the most effect on those right of the “cuckservatives” but to the left of the far right, the “alt lite”

>>221842
How am I supposed to engage with someone who thinks that literally all news is fake and nothing is real, but a scheme of a malevolent God?

How would you respond to some guy who absolutely insisted that everything you think you know about reality is actually an illusion of an evil Shaitan demon, and we actually all live spider cocoons in the ruins of the City of Bagdad after the Mongols sacked it? (And he doesn’t need to prove any of this no matter how many dozens of times you asked him for evidence or reasons).. How would you respond? You’d probably just say “you are retarded and there is no reasoning with you, because you are obviously immune to facts and reason, and you have no respect for facts or reason, thus I have no respect for you.”

Jews are not Ubermensch.

>>221843
This is actually what holded me back, like i already knew Jew's nature and insane degree of influence, i already knew about race realism from elementary school, but do you know what was the first thing i read about an alt-righter?
It was in a comment section about Lauren Southern being alt-right's secret not-secret weapon or some shit:
"Dude i know that faggot who stared at me last night is a fucking jew".
And the other guy answered:
"Get the fuck out of the city, these motherfuckers can fuck up with your brain, you don't really thing about it, but those motherfuckers can screw you up men, don't ever stare at him ever again!"
But a several times much larger comment.

Followed by tons of people seriously talking about it, including one guy saying that ZOG wants you to believe they actually can do this shit to demoralize us.

Alright OP - if that's your real name - here's the thing about the articles and instances you posted about.
1. No archive links?
2. The Apple suit
>“At this early pleadings stage of the litigation, we do not assess the merits of the plaintiffs’ antitrust claims against Apple, nor do we consider any other defenses Apple might have. We merely hold that the Illinois Brick direct-purchaser rule does not bar these plaintiffs from suing Apple under the antitrust laws.”
So, while its nice to see Apple getting some negative attention for one of a multitude of sketchy practices, its a little early to break out the bubbly.
3. The Texas Law
>Hughes told The Tribune that he’s willing to amend the bill on the Senate floor to make sure it is “abundantly clear” that the bill will only allow lawsuits from the attorney general.
This also could go either way, as if its left to the AttyGen, it could end up being something entirely unacted upon.
4. You India you lose
>It remains possible that the CCI’s investigations unit could clear Google of any wrongdoing. The amount of fine that can be imposed on Google if the CCI rules against it was not immediately clear.
Even if ruled against, its hardly a win. Google can handle paying a fine.

It would be nice if this increased scrutiny emboldened critics and tech-giant detractors, but these are relatively minor steps, and the amount of litigation that will be involved in resolving these issues will be a pyrrhic victory in the end, simply because of the amount of time that will be committed to resolving them.
ZOG need not apply, this is just too little IMO.

>>221851
>The Tide SLOWLY Turns Against Tech Monopolies

We ALL hope it does, right?

>>221872
Without a doubt, I'm just saying that with as redpilled as many of us are, it will take more than these few examples for many of us to get excited. Maybe this is a turn for the better; I hope it is, without reservation. Optimism aside, the realist in me is quick to point out that these are not the droids we're looking for.

>>221851
>No archive links
I know a small minority wants these, but when you’re trying to do things in meat space and you are away from your laptop, the niceties of having archived links don’t always outweigh the extra time, effort, and risk of losing the whole post to a refresh.

>its a little early to break out the bubbly.
The reason this case is so significant is because it is a signal of how the Kavanaugh era Supreme Court will vote on antitrust cases that come before it. The United States formerly had fairly robust anti-trust laws, until the 1980s when the Court became dominated by “conservative” appointees, who reflexively vote against the plaintiffs in anti-trust cases because industrialists good, plaintiffs lawyers and regulations bad. So antitrust has been slowly whittled away under decades of conservative dominance. See the Virginia Slims case for an example.

To take another rather extreme instance, look at the 2007 case of “Bell Atlantic Corp v Twombly.” In that case, a consumer alleged that telephone companies were conspiring to not compete with each other and remain in their specific regions, as evidenced by the fact that they were mutually respecting each other’s territory. The defendants moved to dismiss, and the motion to dismiss was appealed all the way up to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court decides that the complaint didn’t not allege enough facts to evidence collusion, and so dismissed it. This is not a case that went to trial and was overturned, it never even went to discovery to allow any evidence to be found. This case so fucked up American law concerning motions to dismiss that every single law student in the US has to read this case in their Civil Procedure class, because of how it changed the law. Modern antitrust has been pretty bleak with the court having a majority of its members appointed by republicans for decades.

Along came this case. Four of the conservatives voted against the plaintiffs because plaintiffs lawyers bad. The four liberals, as per usual, voted against the corporation defendant because corporations bad. What was different this session - what shall be different for years to come - was and is Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who broke with conservative wing to vote against Apple.

Tell me, if you were an attorney general in one of the deep red states like Nebraska, Texas, or Oklahoma, what would your guess be about the likelihood of success of future anti-trust suits against Apple, Facebook, or Google, should they ever end up before the Supreme Court? You’d feel more optimistic about your chances of ultimate success than if the case had gone the other way. Even more so if you were a private law firm thinking about taking on a class action lawsuit against Google or Apple. Massive class action antitrust lawsuits require reviewing millions of documents, hundreds of depositions, and take many years. No law firm is going to want to spend millions of dollars and the better part of s decade just for their case to go all the way to the Supreme Court and be dismissed.

This case here is basically a green light for State’s Attorney Generals and private plaintiffs to sue tech giants, and I promise you it will affect their behavior.

>This also could go either way, as if its left to the AttyGen, it could end up being something entirely unacted upon
You’re forgetting that the US State of Texas is about as crazily right wing as American government gets. Texas is the State that elected Ted Cruz. The Texas Attorney General’s Office is the Office that made Ted Cruz it’s Solicitor General for years, and it’s current Attorney General, Ken Paxton, sued the Obama Administration for is DAPA amnesty, sued the EPA, sued the Department of labor, defended Exxon Mobile in a lawsuit relating to climate change, and that repeatedly engages in judicial activism of all kinds. The Anti-trust division of the Texas AG is extremely aggressive, leading lawsuits against American Airlines, Microsoft, and even a Google. The Consumer Protection Division - the Division which would be enforcing this law if ever passed - is currently suing pharmaceutical companies over the Opioid crisis. Texas loves using litigation as an instrument of right wing political activism.

But forget about Texas. Because there is no logical reason this same legislation cannot be proposed and passed in any of the 24 other states where Republicans hold trifecta power in the legislature and governor’s office. Oklahoma can do it. Ohio can do it. Alabama can do it. Many states can pass this law, and their attorney generals can sue Facebook.

Besides the realistic plausibility if enforcement, this proposed bill has one answer to the old question “how do we take legal action against censorship? After all, the First Amendment only applies to the government, not private corporations. Hughes gives one answer to that question by proposing laws on truth in advertising, under the Deceptive Trade Practices Act, be applied to sites claiming not to be publishers of a certain view point, but who actually show a measurable bias, allowing persons and companies whose adds are refused to sue these social media companies.

Now, we may see more proposed laws in more states. Over the past couple years, the degree of poser these social media companies have has come to light, and they have been pretty bold with their censorship. This shows there is and will be push back.

>Even if ruled against, its hardly a win. Google can handle paying a fine.
Death by a thousand cuts. This antitrust action is more or less India doing what Europe did last year, and it shows that countries around the world - including ones we never expected. This is not the first action by other countries, and it won’t be the last. Keep fining them and fining them, and they won’t have as much money to pour into elections
\r

>>221851
>>221883
>It would be nice if this increased scrutiny emboldened critics and tech-giant detractors
It will.

Hell, it’s already happening in one of the three cases above. India was inspired by the EU, and more shall follow, I clung India again and the EU again.

>these are relatively minor steps
The journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. The simple fact of the matter is that these corporations accumulated insane power over a period of more than a decade, and we are only just now beginning to counter them. It’s society waking up and just starting to react to the problem.

>simply because of the amount of time that will be committed to resolving them
It took more than a decade for these corporations to accumulate this much power, and it’s going to take more than a week to dismantle. It’s not like we are going anywhere. Most of us here will still be alive in three or four years, so if the battle against censorship is still going on then, so be it. It takes as long as it takes.

Look, what do you want out of a thread? Do you demand every thread to say “this great threat that has been menacing us for years or decades was suddenly and decisively defeated. The war is over. We won. You can all go home now.” Those kinds of events don’t happen very often, and when they do, they are proceeded by dozens or even hundreds of stories of skirmishes and battles. Europe’s victory over Napoleon, or the American victory over Japan, were not achieved in a single day. These require many years of successful engagements, or “small steps” as you call them, before final victory can be achieved.

What matters here is that these events, not necessarily important in themselves, show that everyone from Texas to India is fed up with Tech monopolies, and is starting to do something about them. That’s news worth spreading

>>221883
>>221888
checked
Will wait and see then, but still not breaking out the bubbly yet