I had just mentioned this topic in another thread the other day, as well as others here in past threads and happened to stumble across another one from today...

Quote:The Internet Is Dead. Long Live the Internet by James Corbett, July 9, 2023.



Have you heard the latest?

Canadians are losing their access to online news thanks to a new bill that would make tech companies liable for so much as linking to news stories.

French President Macron is mulling a social media shutdown in the name of quelling France's social unrest.
Meta's new "Twitter killer" Threads app is (surprise, surprise!) censoring from day one.

And the UK government is mulling a proposal to give their NSA equivalent, the GCHQ, unprecedented, sweeping new powers to monitor internet logs in real-time.

Are you noticing a pattern?

Yes, the Internet—the "Information Superhighway" version of the "Internet" that was sold as a digital panacea to a credulous public in the 1990s, that is—is now officially dead.

So what does this mean? And where do we go from here? Today, I'll get to the bottom of the dead internet theory and what conspiracy realists should make of this news.

The Internet Theory



If you lived through the '90s, congratulations! You had a front row seat to a fundamental transformation of society the likes of which hasn't been seen by any generation since the days of Gutenberg.

Unless you were working at a university or a US government lab, you started the decade utterly ignorant of email and message boards and even the basic rudiments of computer networking. But by the time you were ringing in the millennium, you were (more likely than not) online, sending emails and surfing the web and getting into your first online flame wars.

You lived through the endless talk about the Information Superhighway. You survived the interminable propaganda designed to convince you that the Internet (capital "I" and all, as if cyberspace was some newly discovered foreign country that we were about to colonize) was going to democratize information, give everyone a voice in the conversation in the digital town square and unite us all in peace, harmony and understanding. And you endured ceaseless segments of befuddled TV hosts informing their audiences about URLs and email addresses as if they were reading an encyclopedia entry in a foreign language, carefully intoning every letter, colon and backslash and tittering over how to pronounce the "@" symbol.

It was all a lie, of course. Unbeknownst to the general public at the time, the internet did not spring fully formed from the heads of the Silicon Valley nerds in the 1990s. In fact, its origins go back much further. As we eventually came to learn, the internet actually began life as the ARPANET, a US Department of Defense project whose goal, according to the former director of DARPA, "was to exploit new computer technologies to meet the needs of military command and control against nuclear threats, achieve survivable control of US nuclear forces, and improve military tactical and management decision making."

As it turns out, even this "nuclear resistant network" story is a limited hangout. As students of my Mass Media: A History online course will know by now, the ARPANET wasn't just about securing America's nuclear war-fighting capabilities but also about improving Uncle Sam's tools of surveillance and control for counterinsurgency operations. This thread of the story—involving characters like psychologist-turned-computer scientist J.C.R. Licklider and his quest to build a tool capable of collecting, storing and analyzing mind-boggling amounts of information on every entity and individual deemed an enemy of the US government—has been largely lost to time.

As Yasha Levine documents in his book on Surveillance Valley, however, anti-Vietnam War protesters on US campuses in the 1960s recognized the ARPANET and The Cambridge Project and associated computer networking research projects for what they were: attempts to find a way to quash dissent against the powers-that-shouldn't-be wherever and whenever that dissent arose.

One 1969 pamphlet on the growing peril of military-funded computer databases noted:

Quote:Clearly the ARPA network has practical military implications. While not a weapon of destruction per se, it will contribute a necessary link to a powerful automated military control system.

And another 1960s pamphlet on the looming threat of silicon surveillance observed:

Quote:The whole computer set-up and the ARPA computer network will enable the government, for the first time, to consult relevant survey data rapidly enough to be used in policy decisions. The net result of this will be to make Washington's international policeman more effective in suppressing popular movements around the world.

Unsurprisingly, perhaps, public awareness of the perils of digital dictatorship and the mechanized menace of the "Octoputer" (with its technological tracking tendrils snaking their way into every nook and cranny of your life) got lost along the way. By the '90s, people were ready to believe that the digitization of social relations was a boon to humanity and that the world would be better off for it.

Meanwhile, here in the 2020s, the gloss of the (capital "I") Internet fairy tale has long since worn off. And, now that we have long since past the point of no return on this roller coaster ride into the digital abyss, we are finding that the dream sold to the public three decades ago—the hopium-induced phantasm of Information Superhighways and technological liberation—is now officially dead.

The Dead Internet Theory



Have you heard of the "dead internet theory"?

In a nutshell, it posits that the Internet of old—the wild and wacky, old-school, capital "I" Internet of human-generated fun and weirdness—died in 2016. Since then, according to adherents of this premise, the majority of everything we encounter online has been bot-generated.

If this theory is correct, then the computer-created content of the dead internet includes not just the obviously inhuman content on the web—the spam that overruns every unmoderated comment section, for instance, or the botnets that flood social media with identically worded propaganda posts—but everything: the content itself, the commentary on that content, the "people" we interact with online, even audio podcasts and video vlogs and other seemingly human-generated media.

Whatever one makes of this dead internet theory, it is certainly neither the first nor the last time that the internet has been declared dead.

In 1998, Paul Krugman infamously declared the internet to be a hype-driven fad, boldly predicting it would have no more impact on the economy than the fax machine.

In 2000, Bob O'Keefe, a professor of information management at Brunel University, opined that the "internet is dead" because "young people want mobility and social interaction, not computers."

In 2002, CNET announced the death of the free web (free as in free beer, that is, not free as in free speech).
In 2007, Mark Cuban told us that "the internet’s dead" and that "it's over" before contradictorily asserting that "the internet’s for old people" because it had become stagnant.

In 2010, Wired confirmed that the web was indeed dead (having been replaced by apps).

In 2015, Vox also pronounced the internet officially dead, a point contested by their MSM brethren over at The New York Times, who asserted in 2017 that the internet was merely in the process of dying.

Even the CBC has gotten in on the act (years after everyone else, of course), daring to ask in 2020 if "the dream of an 'open' internet" is in fact dead.

Some astute observer may have even written "April 10, 2021" on the internet's death certificate in commemoration of the main Corbett Report channel being scrubbed from ThemTube that day.  (I mean, I haven't seen anyone actually do that, but I'm sure someone could!)

Whichever death certificate you choose to believe, though, it's hardly worth quibbling over the exact date and time of the internet's death at this point.

Anyone who has been paying attention to the rise of the censorship-industrial complex over the past decade, anyone who has seen country after country after country after country after country implementing internet shutdowns and great firewalls and internet kill switches to keep their tax cattle from accessing online information detrimental to the powers-that-shouldn't-be, anyone who has seen the push for age verification and digital identification and "driver's licenses" for the internet knows the truth by now: to whatever extent the "Internet" of yore ever existed, it is now well and truly gone.

Heck, I just spent ten minutes searching various search engines with multiple queries to find an article whose exact headline I already knew. (And, irony of ironies, that article is about Canada's new online censorship bill).

My friends, it is now beyond doubt that we are no longer living in the utopian era of the Information Superhighway but in the dystopian nightmare of the digital gulag.

The Internet is dead.

Long Live the Internet?



But what does it mean that the free and open Internet is dead? After all, the ARPANET was designed to be able to survive and to continue functioning even in the wake of nuclear Armageddon, wasn't it? So how can some meddling governments take the whole thing down?

The most obvious answer is that the clueless masses who began logging on to the internet over the past two decades had no clue about the benefits of decentralization and merely gravitated to the most convenient and popular online spaces. By eschewing the labour of creating their own websites (or even designing their own geocities blog or Myspace page), by forsaking the quest to find new, unexplored corners of the net, they unwittingly recreated the dinosaur media paradigm in the new digital domain.

The parallels are striking: just as there were a handful of TV networks and newspapers and media companies that were able to dictate what almost everyone saw, heard, talked about and thought about on a daily basis in the old dinosaur media paradigm, there are now a handful of social media platforms where people are allowed to create a standardized, cookie-cutter profile and talk about the (fact-checker approved) news of the day.

And, just like that, the wacky, weird, intensely personal web of blogs and fora and message boards became the handful of standardized, soulless, corporate social media sites that dominate the web today.

There's even more to the story, though. The truth is that the Internet of yesteryear became the internet of today through a series of actions designed to make a decentralized, distributed network of information exchange into a centralized network of information control.

In fact, from its earliest beginnings, the ARPANET relied on a single "HOSTS.TXT" file maintained by the Stanford Research Institute to map hostnames to IP addresses. That system eventually developed into the Domain Name System that exists today, turning the inscrutable 77.235.50.111 IP address into the human-readable corbettreport.com.

Of course, most people don't give a moment's thought to the domain name system—how it is managed, who controls it, or why such a centralized directory is needed at all to run a supposedly decentralized network—until their domain is seized by the feds, that is.

Nor do they consider the dangers of relying on one of the few big-name web hosts or content delivery networks to host their web site . . . until their hosting is pulled and no one can access their site anymore.

Nor do they ponder the implications for the free, open, decentralized web if everyone relies on a handful of social media platforms run by a handful of Big Tech companies to provide access to their online "friends" . . . until their profile is suspended or their account removed for wrongthink.

Of course, as viewers of #SolutionsWatch know, the concept of truly decentralized communication is still alive and well. From Bastyon to Qortal to nostr to Blockchain DNS and many other projects besides, there is no shortage of developers who are working on ways for people to use the internet as it was intended: as a decentralized, distributed network with no middleman capable of stepping into your peer-to-peer information exchange.

Of course, the majority of people don't care about decentralized communication. They're happy to watch videos on YouTube and to share news on Twitter and to post vacation photos to Instagram and to pretend to be Facebook friends with people they haven't seen since grade school and to call all of this "the internet." They don't care about censorship or government surveillance. After all, if something is banned from this or that social media platform, then it's probably Thoughtcrime and deserves to be censored anyway, right?

But beyond the censorship, there's an even sadder story underlying the tale of the death of the internet. It involves the death of the human element of the early world wide web, a tragedy that the Dead Internet Theory is gesturing toward in a ham-handedly literal fashion.

Although it's incomprehensible for people growing up in today's depressing, enraging, clickbaity internet environment, the truth is that 30 years ago the world wide web was a fun, zany, lively space for encountering truly unique and idiosyncratic sites of all sorts.

The excitement of finding that group of people who cared as much as you did about stamp collecting or Scandinavian doom metal or 19th century crockery or whatever ridiculously niche topic you happened to be interested in is perhaps indescribable to those habituated to mindlessly scrolling through algorithmically provided feeds of increasingly bot-generated content on the handful of boring corporate social media platforms we're confined to today.

Oh, and those twirling "under construction" graphics and flashing, seizure-inducing backgrounds of poorly designed 1990s websites? Humorous as they appear to us in retrospect, they spoke to the human nature of the world wide web back then.

Contrast the off-the-wall individuality of an early 1990s website with the impersonal, inhuman, barren landscape of Facebook or reddit, and you can't help but be left with the feeling that we are slowly being turned into machines ourselves, devoid of personality or individual creativity.

Perhaps, then, it isn't a bad thing that the decentralized networks and platforms that are coming online right now are not popular. They are not being brought down to the lowest common denominator by the Joe Sixpacks and Jane Soccermoms of the world. Perhaps it's through these new, exciting, experimental technologies that we can finally shed the carapace of the dead internet and rediscover that place of human connection that seemed to be at our fingertips lo those many decades ago.

The early internet was pioneered by the misfits, the geeks, the pioneers, the weirdos of all stripes who were willing to go out of their way to create something novel and different. The new internet will be pioneered by them, too. Hope to see you there.

Quote:How So Many Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Nukes (Jul 9, 2023) by Edward Curtin.

Social psychosis is widespread.  In the words of the British psychiatrist, RD Laing, “The condition of alienation, of being asleep, of being unconscious, of being out of one’s mind, is the condition of the normal man.”

He was not referring to raving, drooling, hitting-your-head-against-the-wall lunacy but a taken-for-granted acceptance of a world long teetering on the edge of nuclear extinction, to take the most extreme example, but surely only one of many.  The insouciant acceptance and support of psychotic rulers who promote first-strike nuclear war is very common.  First strike nuclear policy is United States policy.

I recently wrote an article about the dangers of the fourteen US Trident submarines. These subs constantly cruise under the oceans carrying 3,360 nuclear warheads equivalent to 134,400 Hiroshima bombs.

All are on first strike triggers.  And of course these are supplemented by all the land and air based nukes.

My point was not very complicated: now that the United States government has abrogated all nuclear weapons treaties and continues to escalate its war against Russia in Ukraine, we are closer to nuclear annihilation than ever before.

This conclusion is shared by many esteemed thinkers such as the late Daniel Ellsberg who died  on June 16, 2023 and whose 2017 book The Doomsday Machine: Confessions of a Nuclear War Planner, makes clear that nuclear war, waged intentionally or by mistake or accident, is very possible. In the months before he died, he warned that this is now especially true with the situation in Ukraine and the U.S. provocations against China.

The Grayzone’s Max Blumenthal recently addressed the UN Security Council on the danger of U.S. actions in Ukraine and asked:

Quote:Will we see another Douma deception, but this time in Zaporizhzhia? Why are we doing this? Why are we tempting nuclear annihilation by flooding Ukraine with advanced weapons and sabotaging negotiations at every turn?

Finian Cunningham has just raised the specter of a thermonuclear catastrophe initiated by a U.S./Ukrainian false flag attack on the Zaporozhye Nuclear Power Plant.

So my article was in no way unusual, except for my concentration on the Trident submarines.
When, against my better judgment, I read some commentators’ responses to my piece at a few websites where my article was posted, I was taken aback when I read the following [all emphases are mine]:

• Like many other boomers, Edward J Curtin Jr is caught up in ‘nuclear terror’ … whereas on 4chan you see that a large portion of the young generation has come to accept the massive evidence that Hiroshima & Nagasaki were chemically firebombed like Tokyo, and ‘nuclear weapons’ most likely do not exist at all. The 10 alleged ‘nuclear powers’ have had reasons to hoax together, just like the global collusion on ‘covid’ & ‘vaccines’.
  
• So, the point is? Subs with nukes have been cruising around the world’s oceans for over 60 years, back to the time when they tried to scare us with the Cuban missile crisis. I was on a fast attack sub during the Vietnam war, friend of mine got boomer duty, which is what they call the ones that carry the missiles. They’re there for show, they aren’t going to use them. Yes, they should be banned internationally, just in case. But as with the Nuremberg trials and principles, that’s not nearly enough. We’re going to need to create our own New World Order
  
• This is the way the world ends
  This is the way the world ends
  This is the way the world ends
  Not with a bang but a whimper
  I vote for the bang!
  
• The nuke is exaggerated. Reality is that too many will survive a nuclear WWIII.
  There will still be too many useless eaters and psychos left in the underground bunkers no matter how many nukes we drop. Like Chernobyl it will only develop to paradises for animals, natives and homeless on food stamps, while we the exceptionals will suffer from an underground life for 50 years without seeing natural light . A global virus and for double insurance a coupled vaxx, will be a much more effective tool to clean the filth and double shareholders profit..
  
• Dear Ed the sea monsters about as real as nukes.
  
• Another one of the “elites” hoaxes.
  

To hear that there are no nuclear weapons and never were; to learn that some in their embrace of nihilism hope for a nuclear holocaust; to read that nuclear weapons are never going to be used because they only exist for show – well, this at least confirmed my suspicion that many who comment on articles are either bonkers or trolls or both.  Some probably have nothing better to do than inform writers how wrong they are.

It frightened me. It made me wonder how many of the millions of silent ones think similarly or have come to embrace hopelessness as a way of life – the feeling that they have no power because that has been drilled into them from birth.  I have long thought that cultural normality can be understood as the use of one’s freedom to create a prison, a cell in which one can convince oneself that one is safe because the authorities have established a sacred umbrella to protect one from an apocalyptic hard rain that they never think is going to fall.

The Pew Research Center recently surveyed the American public on their sixteen greatest fears.  Nuclear war was not one them.  It was as if nuclear weapons did not exist, as if they have been buried in the cellar of public awareness.

As if Mad Magazine’s  Alfred E. Newman’s motto was the national motto: “What? Me worry?”  No doubt more Americans are aware of the gross public spectacle of Joey Chestnut stuffing his mouth with sixty-five hot dogs in ten minutes than they are of the Biden administration’s insane escalation toward nuclear war in Ukraine.  We live in Guy Debord’s “Society of the Spectacle.”

Although he was writing years ago, Ronald Laing’s words sound ironically prescient today after so many years of endless propaganda, the destruction of human experience resulting in destructive behavior, and the relentless diminishment of human beings to the status of machines:

Quote:At this moment in history, we are all caught in the hell of frenetic passivity. We find ourselves threatened by extermination that will be reciprocal, that no one wishes, that everyone fears, that may just happen to us ‘because’ no one knows how to stop it. There is one possibility of doing so if we can understand the structure of this alienation of ourselves from our experience, our experience from our deeds, our deeds from human authorship. Everyone will be carrying out orders. Where do they come from? Always from elsewhere. Is it still possible to reconstitute our destiny out of the hellish and inhuman fatality?

That is the key question now that more than fifty years have elapsed since Laing penned those words in his now classic book, The Politics of Experience (isbn.nu).  He said then, which is exponentially truer today, that “machines are already becoming better at communicating with each other than human beings with each other.”  Talking about deep things has become passé for so many.

If we don’t start worrying and unlove the machines, we are doomed sooner or later.  Sooner is probable.  Nuclear weapons are very real.  They are poised and ready to fly.  If we continue to live in denial of the madness of those who provoke their use while calmly promoting first-strike policies as the U.S. government does, we are worse than fools.  We are suicidal.

As Daniel Ellsberg told us, “Don’t wait ‘till the bombs are actually falling.”  That will be too late.  There is no doubt that before a nuclear war can happen, we must go insane, normally so.

Let’s make the few protest voices in the wilderness the cries of hundreds of millions:

End nuclear weapons now before they end us.
Stop escalating the war in Ukraine now.
Make peace with Russia and China now.

“There is such a thing as being too late,” Martin Luther King, Jr. told us on April 4, 1967, one year to the day before he was assassinated in a U.S. government plot.

“We still have a choice today: nonviolent coexistence or violent coannihilation.”

When you have body dysmorphia, be it anorexia or thinking you're a different gender, we can all agree that it is a mental illness.
 

The difference is how we approach the two.

With gender, we give in to the patients demands, we accept the false reality that they see when they look in the mirror.

We call the man in women's clothing, "Ma'am" and reaffirm the mental condition.

If we said to the person suffering from anorexia, "Hey fatty-fat, you need to shed a few pounds, lard-butt", we are being cruel.

Isn't it just as cruel to encourage a false body image for folks who "feel" that they are different genders?

Quote:Since the outbreak of the pandemic in mainland China, the economy has been in a standstill, with news of massive salary cuts for civil servants, teachers, and public-sector employees beginning to surface in 2020. In June 2022, Chinese financial news website Caixin.com reported that civil servants across many eastern coastal areas of China had been hit by a wave of salary cuts. Various self-established bonus subsidies were cancelled, with civil servant salaries being reduced by around 20 to 30 percent. The report indicated that civil servants in Guangdong, Zhejiang, and Jiangsu were severely affected. A section-level cadre in Longhua District, Shenzhen, estimated that their income would be cut by more than 20 percent. Previously, with bonuses and subsidies, their annual income could reach about 370,000 yuan. In Southern Jiangsu, a deputy section-level cadre experienced a salary cut of approximately 25%, reducing their take-home pay by about 100,000 yuan. Meanwhile, a grassroots section staff member in a town in Ningbo, Zhejiang, had their bonus, which accounted for 40% of their income, completely cut off.

This former IDF officer seems to have hot  information is he`s pocket .


Who Is Gal Luft? The Retired Israeli Lt. Col. Who Can Bring Down The Biden Administration


‘Missing’ Biden corruption case witness Dr. Gal Luft details allegations against president’s family in extraordinary video






Israeli professor arrested on suspicion of arms trafficking to China, Libya

Yuval Noah Harari, Lead Advisor To Klaus Schwab.

What to do with all these useless people.. Drugs and Computer Games... People will have relationships with virtual spouses and live their lives through computers, never leaving the house.... We used to think about the masses as powerful. That is 20th century as now the masses have no power. 

The product of the 21st century will be humans themselves, Bodies and Minds

Too bad for the poor, they used to have the hope that the rich and powerful tyrants would die like them ... soon, we will have exemption from death.

Most of the roles of the family are now transferred to the state. You no longer will need family or children.

The new religion that will take over the world will be from Silicon valley in the form of Transhumanism such as Ray Kurzweil.
.

Oh, super censor and super spyware. Appears if you already have an Instagram account and then get this threads, you can't get rid of it unless you delete your instagram account. It tracks everything (see links). People were on 5 minutes and censored or tagged with misinformation (Appears if you mention Biden, you get auto flagged maybe?)

Meta's Twitter clone launches, immediately censors anyone with unapproved thoughts

https://twitter.com/jack/status/16760182...64/photo/1

https://notthebee.com/article/metas-twit...the-masses

Quote:Huh.

So it censors you for posting facts that might make people in power look bad, tries to dissuade you from following one side of the political aisle, and tracks everything you do.
And on top of that, it doesn't work.

Quote:Meta is already too powerful. One company controls what much of the public is allowed to see. And if Threads succeeds, it will have 80% of the global market outside of Russia and China, according to one industry insider. As such, it's reasonable to expect that Meta will censor precisely the same way the large news media corporations, including the New York Times, and corporate advertisers want it to. More censorship is what the mainstream news media, big corporations, and their celebrity pitch people have been demanding.

Shellenberger also notes an important distinction between Elon Musk's Twitter, which has the policy of only censoring as national laws deem fit, and Meta/Facebook, which censors according to the woke ideology of the religious zealots who control the company.

Quote:Mark Zuckerberg, the founder of Facebook/Meta’s new competitor to Twitter, “Threads,” promised users a better experience than Twitter.


“I think there should be a public conversations app with 1 billion+ people on it,” said Zuckerberg. “Twitter has had the opportunity to do this but hasn’t nailed it. Hopefully we will.”



But within a few hours of launching, Threads was already secretly censoring users and not offering them the right to appeal.



“@Meta/IG just released their new threads platform,” said conservative commentator Derek Utley at Twitter, “and I’ve been informed by multiple users that I’m censored on their new platform. Sheesh, can’t a dude catch a break.”
Another conservative, Rogan O’Hanley, said, “First 5 minutes on Threads and already censored. What a platform.”


Threads flashed a warning after users clicked on Utley and O’Hanley’s profiles. “Are you sure you want to follow…?” asked the Threads warning. “This account has repeatedly posted false information.”


It’s true that Meta has a legal right to censor users, that Twitter censors too, and we are less than 24 hours into the launch of Threads.


But citizens give Meta broad (Section 230) liability protection that other media companies don’t get. It is thus reasonable to expect that, in return, Meta and other social media platforms should be transparent about their censorship decisions and offer users the right to reply.

Please keep in mind this is just a rant and I was in a very bitchy mood while writing it. I don't expect this to go over well but there are things I need to get off my chest.

Dear fellow citizens of The Nation,

This is my observation but why do most of you focus on or only make inflammatory posts with doom, gloom, bad news, disaster and outrage? It seems you thrive on it and probably giggle with glee every time you parrot news from your bias confirming websites or favorite political talking head pundit that supports your world view and post it here 30 seconds later. The apparent smugness of thinking you are enlightened or somehow smarter than the masses of sheep people because you think you have alternate or allegedly hidden or suppressed ideas is really not a good look and unbelievably lacking in self-awareness. You are being played as hard as anybody is.

The end of the world, the downfall of society, he/she said this or that, libs, Biden, WEF, Bill Gates, CBDCs, vaccines, Muslims, the decay of morality, LGBTx people and so on and on and on are 90% of what gets posted here. Looking at all this from the outside, it seems you must be unhappy or being unhappy, mad or pissed off is what makes you happy? Maybe by only posting negative things and doom porn makes you feel better that you’re encouraging others to share your negative thoughts and ideas so they can be as miserable as you are?

Maybe you feel it is your civic duty as a keyboard warrior to only post the worst or the most stupid thing you can find or maybe you just want your outrage at changes in the world and society you are powerless to do anything about to be shared by others so you don’t feel so alone and insignificant? Maybe it’s a self-aggrandizing need for cred and clout or maybe it’s just plain old narcissism thinking if you dominate the discussions, then you must be top dog or something and everyone will bow to your greatness? Maybe it’s for your own personal gratification, to satiate dysfunctional psychological drives or to plaster your pet topic with no regard for providing meaningful content.

At any rate, this focus on everything wrong in the world will be the downfall of this site for those not in lockstep with the prevailing mindset and it will end up yet another partisan echo chamber of back patting circle jerking but if this is what you want and where things are headed, then count me out which I’m sure some are patiently waiting to happen so they don’t have to listen to opinions different from their own which I generally keep to myself. My belief is that a small forum like this one that averages only between 25 and 30 members visiting per day has the ability of being more of a community and more of a family but to me it seems it is becoming more and more like a cult

So, just a suggestion but can we all calm the hell down a little and try to not be a one trick pony by constantly rehashing alarmist rightwing “news”, ridiculous half-baked conspiracy theories and the worst possible dystopian outcomes imaginable without some degree of balance or vetting before trying to win the popularity contest?

If I were to suddenly start posting leftwing, liberal, progressive or a rash of pro LBGT stuff, I’m sure you wouldn’t like it very much either so please take a moment to reflect on how using RN as your own personal digital billboard for political agendas with no regard for how your constant obsession impacts the rest of the community or at least me and the other two or three people that aren’t hardcore rightwing sycophants.

Making Rogue Nation great doesn’t mean turning it into ATS.

/rant

Attached Files

Thumbnail(s)
   

A video that we have today is from Missouri where a father confronts a sex offender that was bothering his 6 year old daughter.


Sex Offender Was Bothering His Daughter So The Father Gives Him The Only Acceptable Response (Video)

https://defiantamerica.com/sex-offender-...nse-video/

https://defiantamerica.com/wp-content/up...ughter.mp4

Are they serious ?






What happens when the batterys run out on these robots hmm ??