Anyone else notice this? Alt-Media, talking out the side of it's neck.

[lorry]

This is not directed at FDR, which I consider to be doing a great job (Taylor, Brimelow, etc. al.), but towards Alt-Media in general.

How many times does one hear of the requirement for the free exchange of ideas, of the flow of information, so as to stem the drive towards violent conflict? From the Alt-Media, the Rubins, the Sargons, the Rebels, etc, I believe I hear it often (do I need a citation?). Yet, how often do these very same people use their platforms for that which they advocate?

I understand there will be negative consequences, and for me to say Alt-Media must pay those consequences would be hypocritical, for the rebuttal would be why have not I created my own platform (which would entail paying in negative consequence as I would have to then not achieve that which I am working to bring about). 

But then why espouse this as a value? As required action? Who exactly do they think is going to do it?

It has become, I think, the equivalent of #PrayForXYZ and when I think about it I experience a similar disgust. 

[Lerf]

Your comment/question  makes no sense.  I tried to understand it many times, I really did.

[RichardY]

I don't often listen to Sargon of Akkad, though the guy's presentation is excellent. There was a video he did recently about trying to define an Identity, as he didn't like being labelled alt-right. In addition was talking about concerns of being permanently censored on Youtube, so was looking at doing meet-ups in London and alternative platforms. The charisma is there, yes, but a combination of qualities into some Ubermensch...... Ultimately there has got to be some real tangible incentive. Can see an explosion of comments from "alt-right" people on Youtube and looking at many Discord servers. The top of the pyramid and especially bureaucracy of wealth distribution can only be so large. If it's going to be musical chairs, maybe getting some competent non-genocidal people seated; non-Saudi funded, tycoons, Industrialists, Ideally with power to protect their local interests and legacy(and by extension the community) might be a good idea. Though a lot of multinational conglomerates owning the assets now, though someone has to run what is left locally.

[lorry]

On 26/08/2017 at 3:30 AM, Lerf said:

Your comment/question  makes no sense.  I tried to understand it many times, I really did.

No worries.

YouTubers often talk of the need to communicate / argue / debate / free speech after spats of political violence, viz. Charlottesville.

Said YouTubers don't use their platforms for said communication / argument / debate / free speech.

So said YouTubers say we need to do something, and then don't do it.

If they don't do what they say needs to be done, it can be assumed their is some negative consequence which outweighs that which they say needs to be done, ie, being called a Nazi or hassled by YouTube, whatever.

So it is a virtue signal. No different from JK Rowling banging on about housing refugees, but not in her house! We need to communicate and debate, but not on my channel!

And so it just an empty sentiment that means nothing and will achieve nothing, just like tweeting #PrayForXYZ, where XYZ is the location of the latest Islamic terrorist event.

I was venting, but I hope that is more clear.

[Grand]

7 hours ago, lorry said:

No worries.

YouTubers often talk of the need to communicate / argue / debate / free speech after spats of political violence, viz. Charlottesville.

Said YouTubers don't use their platforms for said communication / argument / debate / free speech.

So said YouTubers say we need to do something, and then don't do it.

If they don't do what they say needs to be done, it can be assumed their is some negative consequence which outweighs that which they say needs to be done, ie, being called a Nazi or hassled by YouTube, whatever.

So it is a virtue signal. No different from JK Rowling banging on about housing refugees, but not in her house! We need to communicate and debate, but not on my channel!

And so it just an empty sentiment that means nothing and will achieve nothing, just like tweeting #PrayForXYZ, where XYZ is the location of the latest Islamic terrorist event.

I was venting, but I hope that is more clear.

The answer was in your question mate. The platform they are on is YouTube, and YouTube is owned by Google. Google is actively attempting to censor, silence and shut down anyone who holds such opinions as someone like Sargon, and thus simply "using the platform as free speech" is inherently impossible. One can come as close as they can without getting deleted, and that is what they are doing, and even then it still doesn't work as many of them are getting banned, blacklisted, shadowbanned, demonetized and the such simply for having that opinion, regardless of how strongly they speak out about it. It's easy for someone like you or me to say "If they don't do what they say needs to be done, it can be assumed their is some negative consequence which outweighs that which they say needs to be done, ie, being called a Nazi or hassled by YouTube, whatever" because neither of us make our living from YouTube.

 

And to point out why you see them being against war, that's because an inherent part of Libertarian values is the "Non-Aggression Principle". It is pretty fundamental that Libertarian individuals generally hold that violence should be avoided, and you should always try to find a solution to a problem that does not involve violence. This is also the most un-achievable thing in a Libertarian system, as there isn't an answer to the question of "How do you enforce a non-aggression pact?" that doesn't involve having violence at the ready to meet violence. Since Libertarians try to approach problems as if violence was not an option, they generally find themselves trying to avoid wars, and usually this is seen as a very noble endeavor. And certainly, it is noble, I'd just argue that it's highly unrealistic unless someone figures out how to invent super-giga-death robots that will force us into non-aggression a la "The Day The Earth Stood Still". You could say that the reason that they always talk about it, is BECAUSE there is no good answer yet.