“Nor is social media, as some people like to say, merely a neutral means—one that can be directed, with equal ease, toward any number of ends. Instead, social media has a very specific impact: It weakens the power of insiders and strengthens the power of outsiders. As a result, it favors change over stability—and constitutes a big, new threat to political systems that have long seemed immutable. …
The same logic applies to more sophisticated technology. For much the same reasons that old-fashioned flip phones proved an important tool for African rebel leaders, Facebook and Twitter have given radicals in North America and Western Europe an important tool in their fight against the democratic consensus.
It used to be challenging to put together a protest, much less to start a campaign, without access to established political organizations and vast financial resources. Finding like-minded people and coordinating their efforts was simply too complicated. But thanks to the rise of new technologies, it has become much simpler and cheaper to build a base of supporters and to align what they do. The technological gap between establishment parties and fringe movements has rapidly narrowed—so, as a result, has the ability of outsider candidates to win elected office. …
The same phenomenon is in the middle of transforming the media landscape. Until a few years ago, a small elite of writers, editors, producers, and news anchors effectively decided what views were mainstream enough to be given a hearing. This may sound sinister, but it served an important purpose. It allowed the journalistic class to contain false claims and to refuse to publish racist articles. It also meant that critics who rejected polite political discourse had trouble breaking in. Building a distribution network was expensive, so they couldn’t do much beyond writing angry letters to the editor (which those newspapers could decline to print).
Today, by contrast, just about any citizen can start tweeting, running a blog, or even building a big website like Breitbart. If he amasses enough of a following, he can quickly turn into a major purveyor of fake news. Little wonder, then, that establishment barriers against blatant lying or racist rhetoric in the press have seemingly fallen by the wayside. …”
Very true.
As I have said here several times, I now have the capability to fire a back a cruise missile from the Alabama Black Belt at David Brooks in The New York Times whenever the mood strikes. Like PewDiePie in Sweden, I can use social media to find fans all around the world. I can poison discourse from a treestand in the woods in the middle of nowhere. I can contribute to the epidemic of “fake news” which drives counter narratives in the UK. I can gang up with other true believers and trolls to wreck the Narrative.
Ultimately, we need to take a hard look at the impact Breitbart and talk radio have had on American politics, and then we need to create webzines and podcasts to the right of Breitbart in order to pull the Overton Window to the Right. We need sites with lots of contributors like Infowars which can pump out a firehose of content that spreads virally through social media networks and dissolves the reigning taboos. As Ryan Cooper has noted, we can even get involved in mainstream politics and move into the vacuum left behind by the collapse of the conservative intelligentsia.
Do we need talking heads like Bill Kristol and Jonah Goldberg? We have the means the bypass all of these Eastern Jews now. We have the power to become Tyler Durden in cyberspace.
Note: Imagine a Breitbart of nothing but Tyler Durdens in politics targeting the Narrative on a daily basis. Just think of the chaos it could cause.
Strange how the jews and shitlibs used to chirp about the joys of democracy. Until White people actually started practicing it.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/fedff431d136decf61947a5111cd8b1e1874226b47df8ba4b9683f2bf37a7a68.jpg
Democracy is great in theory.
I remember a bunch of shitlibs, back in the 90’s, in Washington State, who where whining that the citizens of their state couldn’t be trusted to “vote for their own interests.” In other words, vote for what the shitlibs wanted them to vote for.
That’s why they brought in over a million hispanics up there since and the place is now run by commies.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=TO-LFVHpA4s
Don’t take my Simulacra steak away…
What we need is a satirical sitcom called Down in the Trumps.
It would be about the hysteria, meltdown, nuttery, panic, paranoia, and lunacy of the progs, Jewish globalists, feminists, Muslims, etc. in the Trump era.
It can be funnier than ALL IN THE FAMILY. And we wouldn’t even need to invent much since real life people are supplying all the craziness. Just represent them as they are unfolding before our eyes.
Imagine a family where the father is someone like Apatow, mother is someone like Meryl Streep, uncle is someone like Michael Moore, grandpa is someone like Soros and grandma is someone like Hillary, and kids are like Lena Dunham, Shia Lagoof, Miley Cyrus. And the school teachers are like Joy Behar, Jake Tapper, Rachel Maddow, Sarah Silverman, and etc. And the neighbors are like Robert Deniro, Paul Schrader, Ashley Judd, and etc. And the town mayor is someone like Joe Biden.
The topics for episodes: intersectionality of muslims and feminists, rape culture, KKK sightings, Haven Monahan comes to town, homo parades and BLM and Muslim pride and Israel pride all on same day, pussy hatters, etc.
Actually, a reality TV show with all these people together would do the trick.
And for extra fun, let’s say there is a Trump supporter in town who happens to be Ruuuuuuussian. Think of the rumors among townfolks about this suspicious Ruuuuuuuussian.
This hilarious Alt Right sitcom can be made cheap and offered on youtube.
==========================================
That’s the cast of SNL cocksucker.
I like the way you think.
Social media and, in general, internet blogs like this, have allowed Southerners to recapture our front porch; or, that is to say, our unfettered ability to talk amongst ourselves, without interference from the New England Government and it’s proxies.
And… as the ‘status quo’ is the tyrannical prison of their mind control, then, yes – this is very bad for it.
I thank The Lord for it!
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/480f99877487a8a41ebbe34c7fabb068375ac3bab45c84231af43f2a23ff994f.jpg
I will now call my phone a Freedom Phone
Look at what happened to the power of the clergy once anyone could read a bible in their own language.
Or the aristocracy once anyone could read or write pamphlets?
Internet and social media are just the next round of the printing press.
Elites that rely on information scarcity get hit hard with each new advance.
By 2011-2012 we had OWS and Arab Spring going on at the same time thanks to social media and now more people have smartphones that are far more powerful and reliable. It’s hit critical mass and they are right to panic. Barring collapse or mass censorship of the internet, it’s not going back to the way it was.
“The same phenomenon is in the middle of transforming the media landscape. Until a few years ago, a small elite of writers, editors, producers, and news anchors effectively decided what views were mainstream enough to be given a hearing. This may sound sinister, but it served an important purpose. It allowed the journalistic class to contain false claims and to refuse to publish racist articles.”
So William Pierce’s “Who Rules America?” from 20 years ago is the new conventional wisdom?
Should I say “Mwah-ha ha ha ha?
Or merely Deo Gratias?
“This is a good read”
Slate is never a good read! The author is right that the internet makes it easier for decent non-jewish people to organize and spread information, but you don’t need Slate to make that point.
Also, the term “status quo” used by Slate is particularly dishonest. It’s similar to the idea that the country won’t change if the immigration flow remains unchanged. But the jewsmedia like Slate do not defend the status quo. They work tirelessly to destroy White society.
—
Slate: “Facebook and Twitter have given radicals in North America and Western Europe an important tool in their fight against the democratic consensus.”
What democratic consensus? The West lives under a Jewish genocidal dictatorship.
—
Slate: “a small elite of writers, editors, producers, and news anchors effectively decided what views were mainstream enough to be given a hearing.”
It isn’t an elite, it’s a Jewish anti-elite. They decide what is jewstream enough to be on TV.
—
Slate: “It allowed the journalistic class to contain false claims and to refuse to publish racist articles.”
The Jews who control TV are the ones who lie and want to destroy the White race.
—
Slate: “critics who rejected polite political discourse had trouble breaking in.”
The Jews are not polite people. Their “political discourse” is mostly rubbish: diversity is our greatest strength, and so on. They only get away with it thanks to their control of TV. In Europe, they can even have their critics arrested or heavily fined.
“It allowed the journalistic class to contain false claims and to refuse to publish racist articles.”
I.e., it allowed the journalist class to contain claims they disagree with, and articles that contain certain facts.
We need an alternative to Facebook and Youtube. They shouldn’t be openly for us but for freedom of speech and good competitors so Facebook and Youtube lose their power to control the narrative.