Facebook and Google Kikes Manipulating Political System Shamelessly

Adrian Sol
Daily Stormer
August 17, 2018

Have we yet reached peak Zuck?

Democracy is by far the worse political system ever devised, in terms of protection against corruption and meddling by third parties. Especially in the age of mass media – and now social media – those who control the information hold the true power, rather than politicians.

Companies like Google and Facebook have the power to manipulate what people learn about various candidates and their actions, simply by fine tuning their algorithms to favor one over the others.

Until now, I assumed these companies did exactly that.

But as it turns out, they’re being even more brazen and shameless than that.

Motherboard:

“Facebook plays a positive role by helping leaders like you connect with voters,” ((((((Mark Zuckerberg)))))) told European Parliament members in May.

The CEO’s appearance was meant to clarify Facebook’s influence on global politics—one of several testimonies that arose from this year’s Cambridge Analytica scandal. Yet, despite the interrogation of ((((((Zuckerberg)))))) and other tech leaders, questions about their companies’ intimacy with election campaigns have gone largely unanswered.

But an investigation from the Campaign for Accountability, a nonprofit and ethics watchdog group, reveals new details about the political embeds of Facebook and Google. It calls the discreet relationship a conflict of interest, and a surprisingly unregulated one. Campaigns receive free tools and services, it says, while platforms curry insights and powerful political allegiances.

They’ve literally got guys attached to various political campaigns, gathering information and giving “advice” about their media presence. Needless to say, these embeds probably spy on the candidates they don’t like and give valuable information and propaganda tools to their preferred candidates. At the very least, they’ll use the data they gleam from their relationship to fine-tune their own algorithms in order to favor the results they want.

“We are so close with [the campaigns] that we are typically sitting in their offices or having daily calls,” said Ali Jae Henke, a Google employee embedded in a 2016 Republican presidential campaign.

Sometimes Google’s embeds switched between roles—problematically, between ad sales and lobbying, the Campaign for Accountability found via LinkedIn. Google’s head of international elections outreach, Lee Dunn, formerly led the company’s White House outreach, for instance. In this latter role, Dunn had lobbied the Trump administration on digital taxes and copyright. Google’s team lead for US politics, Rob Saliterman, sold ads to campaigns while simultaneously lobbying lawmakers on various policies, the report notes.

We’re hitting levels of corruption that shouldn’t even be possible.

Trump, and the populist wing of the Republican party, need to understand that if they don’t take action soon to curb this flagrant manipulation of the political system by social media mega-corporations, there will come a point where they can never win another election, no matter how popular their policies are, because no one will hear about them.

Social media platforms need to be regulated. All users need equal access to all of a platform’s tools and services, free speech must be rigidly enforced, and popularity algorithms need to be made transparent in order to prevent these companies from boosting their pet political preferences.

Twitter Admits to Social Engineering Their Users

Lee Rogers
Daily Stormer
August 17, 2018

Web 2.0, which became the social media sites of today, has not been good for free political speech. The people in charge of these sites have grossly abused their power.

Back in the 2000s, I distinctly remember hearing this term “web 2.0“that was thrown around. It was a term used to describe a new type of website that allowed people to create accounts and interact with others in a more functional and usable way. I remember being highly skeptical of this idea. Mainly because it sounded like a way to herd large numbers of people onto centralized platforms that could be heavily policed and moderated at a later date.

These web 2.0 sites were the genesis of what has now become the social media infrastructure of today. The most prominent of which are Facebook, Twitter and YouTube. Obviously, there are other social media sites, but these three have in essence become the main public square of the modern era.

These three social media platforms is where most public discourse takes place now.

Unfortunately, my early skepticism of this web 2.0 concept was proven correct. A few years ago, I was banned from Twitter after only being active on the site for three weeks. They threw me off because I expressed my skepticism of the claim that six million Chinese Communists were gassed with re-purposed diesel powered Soviet submarine engines to British MP Stella Creasy. To this day I’m still perplexed as to why Ms. Creasy and Twitter had a problem with this very sound and reasoned position.

As far as free political speech goes, things are very bad on all these sites. And based on what we are hearing from Twitter’s management, it is clear that things are only going to get worse before they get better.

Twitter’s CEO Jack Dorsey did a series of interviews with the media confirming this. During an interview with NBC’s Lester Holt, he discussed how they had temporarily suspended Infowars host Alex Jones for seven days. He specifically referred to the suspension as a “timeout” like we’re all kids in preschool or something.

But it’s what he said afterwords that was the most disturbing. He admitted that they use this “timeout” tool to modify people’s behavior. So effectively, they are using social engineering techniques on their users who don’t comply with the overall Twitter collective.

In a separate interview, he discusses how they’re trying to steer people towards having “healthier” behaviors and “healthier” conversations.

The Hill:

Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey isn’t sure if the timeout given to Alex Jones will convince the right-wing conspiracy theorist to “reconsider” his social media behavior.

But Dorsey, in an interview with The Hill the morning after his company handed down a seven-day suspension to Jones, says its enforcement actions are intended to promote better behavior from its users.

“We’re always trying to cultivate more of a learning mindset and help guide people back towards healthier behaviors and healthier public conversation,” the 41-year-old co-founder of Twitter said.

And who defines what “healthy” behavior is and what isn’t? The Twitter thought police, apparently. Dorsey has literally declared his company to be the arbiter of all that is good and holy.

Pictured above is Twitter’s CEO Jack Dorsey. Does anybody honestly think that this man should have the unilateral power to grant or deny access to the modern day public square? I sure as hell don’t!

These are not the proper functions of anyone who is managing a legitimate social media platform. A proper social media site is one that allows all people to freely exchange ideas with one another. The only time it would be appropriate for administrators to step in would be if someone used the platform to facilitate a crime. Uploading child pornography and making specific death threats to a politician are things that come to mind. Outside of that, people who are offended by other users can simply block them.

Instead of taking this common sense position, Twitter has decided to police users based on an arbitrary set of standards that nobody understands. It has created a situation where online mobs are demanding people be banned simply for having differing political views. When Twitter’s management chose to abandon their neutrality, they were effectively approving of all content visible on the site. They become a publisher instead of a platform and are now subject to the whims of mobs.

Needless to say, this is a completely unsustainable model. It’s why the government has to step in and implement some type of regulation to protect free political speech on these platforms.

Democrat Senator Mark Warner has proposed a complete shut down of free speech on social media.

The Democrats are planning the exact opposite this. They’ve already proposed implementing regulations on social media sites that will further empower them to ban anyone they politically disagree with. This will be done under the guise of labeling their political opponents as Russian agents promoting fake news.

Think I joke?

Read the list of proposals from Democrat Senator Mark Warner. It’s a plan to have the government come in and ensure that everything is shut down and stays shut down.

The best possible thing we can do at this point is encourage an acceleration of the ban hammer on any remaining big name right-wing personalities and groups. This will help give an increasing amount of legitimacy to any future government intervention.

I mean let’s face it: the only people left on these platforms are those who never had the courage to call out the Chinese Communists. So why should we care if any of them get banned or not? It’s not like they’re serving a real useful purpose any way.

Holy Shit: Republicans Fire the Entire West Virginia Supreme Court

Adrian Sol
Daily Stormer
August 17, 2018

Normally, you’d expect bad judges to get taken out by the good ones. But what do you do when you don’t have any Dredd-tier judges around to deliver righteous justice?

This is how you deal with uppity, corrupt judges – you just fire em’ all.

This is a great development – there’s a lot of judges that are in dire need of a good booting in America, and it was about time we got started cleaning em’ out.

CBS:

West Virginia lawmakers completed the extraordinary move of impeaching all four state Supreme Court justices Monday night for spending issues, including a suspended justice facing a 23-count federal indictment. The state House of Delegates voted to impeach Justice Allen Loughry on eight articles, setting the stage for a trial in the state Senate.

Beth Walker became the final justice to be impeached when an article was approved stating all four justices abused their authority. It said they failed to control office expenses, including more than $1 million in renovations to their individual offices, and not maintaining policies over matters such as working lunches and the use of state vehicles and office computers at home.

This is at the state level.

But over the past two years, we’ve seen federal judges “abusing their authority” over and over again, blocking Trump’s actions even when such things are completely outside of the judiciary’s mandate.

The exact same thing could be done with them.

Sounds like there’s a lot of impeachin’ to do.

Walker had dodged impeachment earlier Monday night when lawmakers decided to overlook her $131,000 in spending on office renovations. A short time later, another article was withdrawn against Chief Justice Margaret Workman, who spent $111,000 in renovations.

Justice Robin Davis was impeached for $500,000 in office renovations. And lawmakers approved articles against Loughry for spending $363,000 in renovations to his office; having a $42,000 antique desk and computers, all owned by the state, at his home; lying to the House Finance Committee about taking home the desk and a $32,000 suede leather couch; and for his personal use of state vehicles.

Loughry, Workman and Davis also were impeached for their roles in allowing senior status judges to be paid higher than allowed wages. Lawmakers say the overpayments violated state law and stopped when they were challenged by the Internal Revenue Service.

Wow, these people are all corrupt, money-grubbing scumbags.

Basically, they’re all getting impeached over corruption charges. That’s fine, but I’m guessing it’s easier to accomplish than impeaching over improper, politically motivated rulings and restraining orders.

To clean up the federal judiciary would probably require the supreme court to rule that these blanket restraining orders over the executive are unconstitutional, which would then allow congress to begin impeaching the judges who persist in hampering the Trump agenda with these illegal rulings.

And such a supreme court ruling is said to be in the works.

Another impeachment article was withdrawn dealing with an accusation Loughry used state money to frame personal items at his office.

Minority Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee that approved the articles last week had tried to speed up the impeachment process in the hopes of beating an Aug. 14 deadline for arranging a special election in November if any justice is removed from office or leaves office. Instead, the committee took its time, even conducting a tour of the state Supreme Court offices earlier this month.

Republican Gov. Jim Justice will be allowed to appoint new justices to replace any who are impeached — with no requirement that they be from the same party as the incumbent.

Democrats have accused Republicans of attempting to wrest the court away from voters, who elected the current justices in nonpartisan elections.

The new replacement judges will likely all be Republicans, which I guess is great for the people of West Virginia.

The same principle would apply at the federal level – Trump would be able to appoint anyone he likes to the federal courts. This would deal a devastating blow to the damn Jew kritarchy stifling American populism.

Judges need to be put back in their place, which is to apply the law as written and intended. I guess they also need to stop spending hundreds of thousands of tax-payer’s money to renovate their offices, lol.

But this is a very good sign of things to come. If the entire supreme court of a state can be cleared out in a short time, then imagine what great things are possible in the future…

The Media has Turned Against Trump – Will It Destroy Him?

Andrew Anglin
Daily Stormer
August 17, 2018

In a shocking 360 reversal, the entire media has apparently turned against Donald Trump.

NPR:

More than 300 news publications across the country are joining together to defend the role of a free press and denounce President Trump’s ongoing attacks on the news media in coordinated editorials publishing Thursday, according to a tally by The Boston Globe.

The project was spearheaded by staff members of the editorial page at the Globe, who write: “This relentless assault on the free press has dangerous consequences. We asked editorial boards from around the country – liberal and conservative, large and small — to join us today to address this fundamental threat in their own words.

“Marjorie Pritchard, the Globe’s deputy managing editor of the editorial page who spearheaded the effort, told NPR’s Morning Edition, “This editorial project is not against the Trump administration’s agenda. It’s a response to put us into the public discourse and defend the First Amendment.”

This could be a game-changer.

Trump has had numbers just a few points higher than Obama had at this point in his term – but the biggest part of that has been the difference in the way the media treats Trump, compared to the way they treated Obama.

Even the younger among you will recall that the media viciously, and relentlessly attacked Barack Obama as a “greasy burrhead spook,” “a conniving coon” and a “real nasty nigger” throughout his entire term as President.

Almost immediately after the election, the Washington Post, which had traditionally never had a subheading below their title, added “Niggers Die at the End of a Rope” to their logo.

CNN was often referred to as the “Crucify Niggers Network” due to the repeated statements by Jewish anchors ((((((Wolf Blitzer)))))) and ((((((Jake Tapper)))))) that “we need to start crucifying niggers like we did to Christ.”

CNN White House correspondent Jim Acosta would take the opportunity, whenever he was called on by the President during a press conference, to ask “when are you planning to take a bath, you stinking ape?”

Following his election victory, MSNBC host ((((((Rachel Maddow)))))) broke down in tears, saying, “it’s happened: we’ve got a mosshead jigaboo running the once proud nation.”

It was a relentless, nonstop attack on the Kenyan President.

Furthermore, he was dogged for the first years of his presidency by a council which claimed he was colluding with his home country of Kenya to shift American foreign policy to a pro-Kenyan position.

Trump, on the other hand, has a record 90% positive media record, with mainstream pundits hailing him as “The Literal Messiah.”

CNN recently had a “debate” between two pundits with one arguing that he was “the second coming of Christ” and the other arguing that he was “a Dune-like Muad’dib messiah.” At the end of the debate, both agreed that he could be both at once.

So the question is: will it be possible for Trump to maintain these soaring approval ratings with the media having turned against him?

To me, the answer is very clear: no President could possibly maintain popularity with the entire media attacking him, given the overwhelming influence that the media has on public opinion. The only way Obama weathered the storm was because he had such good policies, like giving all black people free cellphones.

Effectively, this decision by the media to turn on Trump is a signal of his imminent downfall.

America Would Objectively be a Better Country Under Russian Occupation

Andrew Anglin
Daily Stormer
August 17, 2018

So the kikes are mad because not enough people give a shit about their stupid “election meddling” hoax.

Why would anyone care about this?

Even if it was all true – which no one believes, not even the people who say they believe it – who cares?

Washington Post:

new poll from CNN and its polling partner SSRS suggests another problem: A large percentage of Republicans don’t think that interference will happen and that, if it does, it’s not a big deal.

CNN’s poll gets close to that question. If interference did occur, the pollsters asked, how big a problem would that pose?

More than a quarter of Americans said it would be a crisis for the country. Nearly three-quarters said it would be at least a major problem. But, again, that wasn’t the case among Republicans.

Among Republicans, more than 4 in 10 said it would be, at worst, a minor problem. One in 8 Republicans said it wouldn’t be a problem at all. Among Trump supporters, that figure jumped to about 1 in 7.

I’m so sick of talking about the fact that when they talk about “election interference” they are talking specifically about Russians posting shitty yellow font memes on Facebook – something that isn’t even close to being against the law – that I’m not even going to go into it.

Obviously, when they say “election interference,” people think of changing votes, and don’t know they’re talking about memes on Facebook… but seriously. I can’t even bear to talk about that talking point anymore. It’s just too much.

And look.

Here’s the other thing.

Everything that the existing American establishment wants to do to us – and is doing to us – is worse than anything that would happen to us if we were literally invaded and conquered by Russia.

Right now, the Jews in control of America are intent on:

  • Promoting trannyism to children
  • Promoting mass abortion of white children
  • Promoting ultra bizarre forms of hardcore feminism
  • Promoting homosexuality
  • Destroying traditional family values, generally
  • Destroying Christianity
  • Flooding the country with brown people from shithole countries
  • Inciting black people to riot and commit acts of violence against whites

None of those things would be happening under a Russian occupation government.

By any objective measure, excluding freedom of speech and freedom of assembly, which we don’t really have now anyway, we would have a more free and certainly a more healthy nation if we were invaded and conquered by Russia.

I don’t even think that this is controversial.

If you had a discussion with any genuine Christian conservative, and presented these facts, they would be forced to agree that America would be a better country under Russian occupation.

Period.

South Africa Lists Hundreds of Farms to Steal Without Compensation

Octavio Rivera
Daily Stormer
August 17, 2018

The situation in South Africa continues to turn grimmer each passing day. The clock is ticking for whites there.

Daily Mail:

South Africa’s government has been accused of earmarking almost 200 farms for seizure from their white owners as the chair of the African National Congress said the state should take land from those who own more than 12,000 hectares.

The rand fell on financial markets after ANC chair Gwede Mantashe, an ally of President Cyril Ramaphosa, said this week that major landowners should have their land taken without compensation.

“Without compensation” is niggerspeak for “we’ll rape and eat them alive.”

‘You shouldn’t own more than 12,000 hectares of land and therefore if you own more, it should be taken without compensation,’ ANC Chairman Gwede Mantashe, who is also the country’s mines minister, told News24 in an interview published on Wednesday.

See that? That’s niggersoning. It’s their attempt at reasoning.

You shouldn’t own more than two pairs of socks and therefore if you own more, it should be taken without compensation.

You shouldn’t own that car and therefore if you own it, it should be taken without compensation.

You shouldn’t own something I want and therefore if you own something I want, I should take it without compensation.

Who is this “Chairman” nigger?

Gwede Mantashe

Mantashe is one of the top six most powerful officials in the ruling party and a close ally of President Cyril Ramaphosa.

Alright then.

Keep in mind that chairnigger is likely to be above average in IQ for a nigger. Can you imagine what the average nigger thinks in South Africa?

Gibs gibs gibs, gibs gibs, gibs, GIBS! gibs? GIBS GIBS G I B S !

On the one hand you have these niggers thinking they are justified to steal the land from huwhitey in a place they didn’t inhabit before huwhitey came. On the other, you have everything huwhitey gave to blacks, which is to say, everything they have.

Why aren’t white farmers in South Africa asking for compensation for everything they and their people have given blacks?

There were no cities in Africa before the white man got there. Blacks made no stone nor brick building, they had nothing but huts made from grass and mud.

Everything they now enjoy is a product of the white man.

They think the land belongs to them, while dressing thanks to the white man, while working thanks to the white man, while using the white man’s gadgets and inventions, enjoying the white man’s technology, medicine, education, “humanitarian” aid money – while living thanks to the white man’s vaccines, eating thanks to the white man’s agricultural innovations.

Now, they are using the white man’s language, their imitation of his own moral reason, their imitation of their democracy, government and titles, to attempt to say “gimme dem gibs, whitey” in as white-seeming a way as they can muster.

I have white man crown. You give me land now.