seigneur wrote:

Youtube, Twitter, and Facebook ban certain brands of views? They are big companies who only care about profit. They do not notice anybody's views. They only censor because some expressions, such as invitations to lynch, sharing copyrighted data, and stalking, are illegal.

I see the Left is back to rewriting even history that happened less than four years ago. I hope you are being paid for this because brain damage is irreverisble.

Dennis wrote:

For those people who are interested and feel uneasy because of the major tech companies colluding with each other to censor certain brands of views and de-platform them, what kind of regulations or lack thereof do you predict there will be on specific monopolies like YouTube, Facebook and twitter, as well as other platforms or the internet as a whole in the future?

A distinct but interrelated question, would you like to see more censorship or lesser censorship on the internet, and what would motivate either of those decisions?

They can't ban their user base and wont risk direct confrontation with the manifest will of the American people. Regulation isn't the problem here: it's the social weaponization of political correctness. Once people begin to refuse to accept and tolerate it by fighting back and starting quagmires,then the bad press, hassle and cost of such battles will result in social media corps backing away from engaging in censorship. It's no different than the fall of the Soviet Union: the whole thing is based on an artificial representation of reality that is entirely fictitious. Once the illusion is shattered then the power and control disappears.

nojoum wrote:

It's ironic that I once told a Trump supporter that someday you will hail Trump as a man sent by God!
Guess what...
 

There is nothing extraordinary about believing people can be instruments of God, even unawares. In the biblical worldview God uses both good and even sometimes evil men to accomplish His will.

What the OP said is hardly unique to Trump. There has been backlash against globalism since I was in high school in the 90s. When I took a Global Issues class, we talked about globalism and the consensus of the left was that it was actually a horrible thing and my teacher was borderline communist. Now the left is outright championing globalism. Still that teacher accepted Malthusianism, which like all false materialistic philosophies planted the seed for the destruction of the left in practice (he also used it to justify globalistic population control programs, artificial contraception, abortion, etc. - all of which require globalistic structures to enforce). The fact the left has been hijacked by neoliberalism (under Clinton) and far-left identity politics (under Obama) while pushing nonetheless for a global super state just shows, to me, that the liberal wing of Western societies were corrupted in their leadership and divorced from their own core beliefs, being fed a steady diet of manipulative propaganda and sophistry on one hand while impossibly still trying to forge a  "one world society." That is of course insane because identity politics is tribalism writ large. The Left then has the maddening audacity to accuse the right of engaging in Nativism! This once again is leftist projection.

Never-Trumpers and Leftists both call Trump a populist, which means he represents the beliefs that are popular among the people. So the message Trump is delivering first had its origins in the mind and thinking of the people. Now how does a democrat complain about the beliefs of the people being the voice of ultimate authority? Indeed, believers se

Caeliger wrote:

Democracy, especially in the currently understood "universal" sense, is a pure fallacy. By metaphysical law it is impossible for good things to proceed from "below"; that is, from what we might call "Substance" (crudely convertible, in Scholastic terminology, to "Existence" in the universal). What this amounts to saying is that what is good can ultimately only proceed from Being to beings, not the other way around.

Universal Substance is the "passive" (synonyms from various traditions and practical applications for reference: moon, negative, Gaia, Niflheim, passive, centrifugal)  ontological pole of creation, the "opposite" (complementary) being Essence, crudely called "Substance" by many Scholastics, which is the "active" (sun, positive, Ouranos, Muspelheim, active, centripetal) pole. These, by interaction, manifest the "wheel of life", in Christian tradition "creation".

It may seem that I am merely "speculating" here, but these are universal metaphysical doctrines that are similar and essentially united not because of extensive "borrowing", but because they are true and were passed down by God. The fact of the matter is that "passive perfection" can never really be "active perfection", and whenever this is attempted, in whatever degree of Universal Existence, the result will eventually be suffering (specifically applicable to beings with a capacity to experience such) and deformation (universal). 

Democracy, especially if indiscriminate and merely secular, will inevitably be a more or less catastrophic affair, even if the consequential forces of dissolution may not be perceived until it is too late. For he who cannot perceive them now, I must urge some serious consideration. I know that this goes against many "American dreams" and a lot of "hope" that people may have invested in this world, but the good news is that there are, in addition to the corporeal, actual psychic and spiritual realities that are more ontologically fundamental (a

…