← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Okiereddust
Thread ID: 6458 | Posts: 26 | Started: 2003-05-02
2003-05-02 23:14 | User Profile
[url=http://www.freerepublicsucks.s5.com/crackdownmay2003.htm]Free Republic Sucks [/url]
By Edgar Hall, Political Editor WHEN crusading Conservative Jim Robinson first set up Free Republic six years ago, he had high hopes for his message board baby. It wouldn't be like all the other political forums he posted on, which regularly denied him free speech. Oh no, Siree!
His forum, to borrow from the mission statement on the homepage, would "roll back decades of governmental largesse, root out political fraud and corruption and champion causes which further conservatism in America". If posters wanted to sound off against the government, that was just fine with Jim. And if one of those posters happened to believe George W Bush was a "cokehead felon ", good luck to him!
That was six years ago.
In 2003, things are rather different at the Fresno-based Free Republic and the poster who trashed Dubya would now be banned instantly. Ironically, that poster was... Jim Robinson himself. In 1999, he incensed his readers by making the following post:
**To: Freedom Wins **
So, it doesn't matter if he [Bush] snorted coke as a youth? It was a long time ago, a youthful in-discretion? Kinda like people who frequented sneakeasies during prohibition? Kind of a cute story, eh? Well, how about all the people whose lives have been destroyed by being arrested for the felony of drug possession? What about the millions of people who are rotting away in your filthy drug infested prisons at this very moment?
Well, by God, if you people insist on electing another cokehead as President, you damned well better throw open all the prison cell doors and free every man, woman, and child you're holding on drug charges. And if you're gonna elect another drug felon as President, you'd better rescind each and every one of your unconstitutional drug laws now on the books, including all of your unconstitutional search and seizure laws, and your asset forfeiture laws, and your laws that enable your unconstitutional snooping into our bank accounts and cash transactions. Well, I don't know whether to laugh or cry. You people are sick! Conservatives my ass. You people are nothing but a bunch of non-thinking hypocrits! You're a shame and a disgrace to the Republic!
And, I, for one, am tired of taking orders from cokeheads and felons! Elect another one and I'll tell you what. I'll be ready for war! It'll be time to take up arms and run the filthy lying bastards out!
Posted on 08/20/1999 03:19:31 PDT by Jim Robinson
Nowadays such attacks on Dubya are mightily unwelcome - don't you know there's a war on? - and a new breed of "Texas Chainsaw" moderators has instructions to stamp down on any insubordination.
Appalled at the change in direction, many of Jim's closest followers have predictably deserted FR in protest - followers like Joe Phillips, Robinson's friend and chief fundraiser, who blames head moderator "Ms Anti Feminazi" for the change in outlook. After longtime poster "Askel5" was zapped last month for questioning Rumsfeld's integrity, Phillips blasted: "I tried and tried to get JR to understand that banning folks like "Askel5" was dumbing down the forum.
"But to my knowledge the only one he listens to is dumbass "MAF", the leader of the Texas Chainsaw Massacre gang. I have been consistantly amazed that the five or six good moderators have stayed on with this mental midget dips**t."
In fact, the banning of "Askel5" had little or nothing to do with "MAF". It was wholly Robinson's decision and the reason he gave may have suggested he could give any self-respecting "mental midget" a run for his money. When "Askel5" tried to reply to some fairly hostile flamebaiting, she received the blunt message, "Your posting privilege has been revoked. Reason: Saddam apologist."
So are the moderators really out of control or is it perhaps Jim who needs to take a break? "Jim calls the shots," insists one of the mods, who agreed to talk to us under condition of anonymity. "Sure, we get a little power-crazed from time to time and suspend a few folks. But if we over-step the mark, these people are back posting within days. Jim oversees everything. He isn't some bewildered old man who doesn't know what's going on - he reads the forum religiously.
"I don't know about the others but I get a little fed up with the abuse we get. It's an unpaid job on one of the busiest political forums there is. You see all these breakaway forums setting up and they all swear they won't go the same way as Free Republic. Yet within months they are banning posters willy-nilly."
But a former moderator sees things rather differently, claiming her successors actually get a kick out of banning people's accounts. Poster "Mercuria", who was once a moderator and member of the elite Free Republic Advisory Board, insists: "The mods and Jim (whom I'm sure is ALSO a mod) certainly chortle enough with their ZAPS and ZOTS.
"They've made no secret that they enjoy being able to shut down the debate of anyone who disagrees with them, no matter how reasonable the dissenters are being. They think all this is cute. Gives them that big Ego Rush of Belonging they obviously can't get off-line."
One such dissenter was Christopher Knight, who also found himself out in the cold recently for not loving the "cokehead felon". This time the reason Jim gave wasn't "Saddam apologist" but instead "Liberal". Which he isn't, unlike Robinson who used to be a registered Democrat.
"I joined FR as "Darth Sidious" in January of 1999 because its overwhelming mission was restoring the rule of law to this land during Clinton's fiasco of an administration," explains Knight. "What happened to Free Republic was the sad old story of obsession: the site and its management became so obsessed with destroying an enemy, it **became** the enemy.
"There is no more free and earnest discussion on this site. Anger the Robinsons [Jim's son John is also involved in FR] or their gang of "moderators" and you get banned. Do something they particularly don't like and all your posts - years worth of them even - get obliterated down the "memory hole". You cease to exist on FR anymore... because there is no individuality where "the party" is concerned."
Robinson has since reactivated Knight's account but he has not posted there since his banning. And if Free Republic continues to resemble the online version of Orwell's *1984*, he probably won't be back for a while.
As "Mercuria" says: "I'd always thought that being a conservative was about respecting independent thought and open debate - am I wrong?"
Apparently, she **is** wrong. "Independent thought and open debate" are no longer permissable at Free Republic - except maybe for that one little guy who thinks President Bush is a "cokehead felon".
Interesting Website. I thought we should do something like that over here, but one has to parcel one's resources. So many deserving "blank sucks" targets around, although JR must rank near the top of any such list.
2003-05-02 23:20 | User Profile
Liberty Post - **NEWISH** IN APPEARANCE Liberty Post is the closest to Free Republic, though its management team insist it's all their own work! To begin with, LP was almost entirely an anti-freeping site. Complaints about Robinson's site dominated the Latest Posts section on an hourly basis. However, most of the hardcore anti-freepers have been banned one-by-one and anti-freeping - such as it is - is conducted in a section called The Biker Bar.
The popularity of LP took a hit recently when many posters defected to Freedom Underground (see below) but it's still the first stop for any banned Freeper. So-called "flying monkeys" from FR regularly stage raids on the forum to troll the site but invariably they return better behaved months later when Robinson bans them. Liberty Forum JOHN DEERE'S forum gets far more hits than Liberty Post but Freepers don't like it because they say it is anti-semitic. And it has to be said, the Middle East flame-wars on LF are not for the faint-hearted. What LF does have going for it is that it has private messaging so Freepers can lurk there for months without posting.
LF recently signed a partnership with Free-Market.Net which has strengthened its support. Surprisingly, LF still does not ask its posters for financial donations. With a membership approaching 2,000, LF has grown immeasurably since it went public last summer.
Freedom Underground - NEW AMUSINGLY NAMED "FU" is a spin-off from a spin-off. It mainly consists of anti-government posters who left LP because they didn't like the new flock of "Bush-bots" who had come over from Free Republic.
FU is run by poster "unamused", who was banned from LP for spamming the forum with foul language. "unamused" designed LP's primitive email system (Leper-Mail) so he had ready access to its members and was able to poach them.
Reunion Reformation - NEWISH THE REUNION site has undergone many reincarnations and rose out of the ashes of a "Delphi" forum called Reunion, which was run by banned FR poster "Arator". When "Arator" went running back to Jim Robinson, poster "Flem Snopes" started his own forum on Delphi.
After Delphi outlawed RuR a year ago it was forced to find new lodgings. Its main claim to fame is that FR's most notorious poster "Eschoir" is a regular visitor.
Democratic Underground DU is the Liberal "antidote" to Free Republic. Its message board isn't as user friendly as FR's and it has also been accused of over-moderation. Many Freepers post there under fake names and then run back to FR to file tedious reports to the big cheese - which are usually deleted instantly by Jim's moderators.
Lucianne.com BY NO means new, this long-established Conservative forum is nonetheless worthy of mention because it continues to get huge hits. Owned by literary agent, Lucianne Goldberg, its "Shortcuts" are updated four or five times a week, unlike Jim's tired homepage, which is updated about as often as his son John posts at FR - ie rarely, if ever.
Anti-Kooking - NEWISH THE ANTI-KOOKING gang have been around the longest and have been a consistent thorn in Robinson's side. After Delphi booted them, they set up on Nick Bauer's Allied Conservatives site but - following complaints by LP boss Neil McIver - their hosts shut them down again. They are now back at Delphi, using different screen names to circumvent Delphi's Terms of Service.
Vast Right Wing HEAVEN knows what happened to this place! Not so much "vast" as "vanished", the forum once had a popular chat room called "The Alley". The last time we looked at its sister site The News Forum, we got the message, "We're moving - Please visit us soon." Webmaster Navigator was recently banned from Free Republic so should have a bit of time on his hands to add to the six words which currently constitute the entire content of the site.
Interesting link section off "Free Republic Sucks" website. Hey, where are we Tex?
2003-05-03 01:19 | User Profile
Tales from the Freeper Crypt!
2003-05-03 03:07 | User Profile
I agree with him about the cokehead felon thing.
2003-05-03 03:34 | User Profile
Its all about the Benjamins, huh JR?
In more ways than one.... :drool:
2003-05-03 06:22 | User Profile
Originally posted by Okiereddust@May 2 2003, 23:14 ** As "Mercuria" says: "I'd always thought that being a conservative was about respecting independent thought and open debate - am I wrong?" **
Yes, Mercuria, you are wrong.
In 1955 Bill Buckley and his CIA friends founded National Review for the express purpose of building the corporate totalitarian Amerika we live in today. "Conservatism" is whatever this mob says it is. Freep has become the regime's most slavish stooges.
It took a lot of us way too long to see this. As an ex-longtime subscriber to National Review I apologize to all real "conservatives" -- but get a new word. Sticking "paleo" in front don't seem to shake the spooks. (Or fool anybody.)
2003-05-04 00:01 | User Profile
Okiereddust,
**Interesting link section off "Free Republic Sucks" website. Hey, where are we Tex? **
Original Dissent seens to have been added.
**Original Dissent - NEWISH PROBABLY the furthest to the right of all the FR spin-offs, OD seems to be gathering momentum and has undergone several technical upgrades recently. It is home to many banned FR posters, plus refugees from the old Reunion site and the now defunct Sam Francis forum.
url: [url=http://www.freerepublicsucks.s5.com/Links.html]http://www.freerepublicsucks.s5.com/Links.html[/url] **
2003-05-04 01:31 | User Profile
Originally posted by Faust@May 3 2003, 19:01 ** Original Dissent seens to have been added. **
Thanks, Okie!
:th:
2003-05-04 01:41 | User Profile
Originally posted by Faust@May 3 2003, 20:01 ** It is home to many banned FR posters, plus refugees from the old Reunion site and the now defunct Sam Francis forum. **
And how much advertising RimJob must have given the Sam Francis forum in his day!
I recall JR's famous phrase: "Take it to Sam Francis!"
2003-05-04 02:12 | User Profile
Originally posted by Texas Dissident@May 4 2003, 01:31 Thanks, Okie! :th: It ought to give us a lot of referrals. It has an alexa rating of 247!(Maybe someone could explain to me what's really going on there, looks like we're just getting the rating for a general webhost or something)
[url=http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?&url=www.freerepublicsucks.s5.com]Alexa Rating - FreeRepublicSucks[/url]
2003-05-04 02:25 | User Profile
It's not their rating, it's their host's rating.
By the way, the term "banned FR posters" has become meaningless.
2003-05-04 02:33 | User Profile
I certainly get a kick out of the 'anti' sites as they obviously bother enough of the Creepy Freepers to the extent that any FR thread about the antis draws over 500 posts... and the image of each of those 500 respective posters with necks even redder than usual and with smoke pouring out of their ears, as lesser mortals dare to insult their great god, JimRob, is quite priceless.
However, they (and by 'they' I mean the antis, not the Creepies) largely miss the big issue as they focus on personality conflicts, "in-crowd" conspiracies (and, as an aside, what is more preposterous than an 'in-crowd' on a freakin' message board), and Freepmail gossip.
The big issue, in the final analysis, is the shift from FR from an essentially right-wing, grassroots American conservatism board to a Likud forum- which is indisputably what it has become. That's the big issue with Free Republic- and the bigger issue with the nation at large is that what happened at FR is in a sense a microcosm of the American conservative movement on the whole. Which is why I would vote for Ralph Nader over a George Bush in 2004- and, no, I'm not kidding.
2003-05-04 06:45 | User Profile
Originally posted by Phillip Augustus@May 4 2003, 02:33 ** Which is why I would vote for Ralph Nader over a George Bush in 2004- and, no, I'm not kidding. **
Oh, Nader is clearly the better choice.
I think most of us here would agree with that.
I agree with Ralph on "what" must be done, although our reasons "why" are probably divergent.
Ralph wants to trim the power of corporations, including their ability to contribute stockholder money to political parties. So do I, but I want to do that mostly because the management large corporations have been infiltrated by our ethnic enemies, and it would be a blow against them.
Ralph wants to de-federalize "gonadal" politics - abortion, homosexuality, and so forth. I agree, but mostly because our ethnic enemies have more power at the federal level and returning these issues to the States will help us to resist them better.
The list goes on.
Basically, at this point anyboyd who's against concentrations of state power and corporate wealth is my friend.
Walter
2003-05-04 19:12 | User Profile
Originally posted by Walter Yannis@May 4 2003, 06:45 **The list goes on.
Basically, at this point anyboyd who's against concentrations of state power and corporate wealth is my friend.
Walter**
I hope you all aren't that desperate for "friends" that you seriously talk of throwing yourself at Nadar like that. For one thing, no greenie I know of would seriously ever think of voting for Pat. Secondly, in all likelihood Pat or someone very close to him will be running anyway, besides people like Phillips and even Browne (who does meet your criteria here also).
We've gone over this greenie/communist thing already anyway.
**....how weird it is that so many paleo's who whine at VDARE for having Mrs. Malkin on its fairly modest website are the same ones who are all for if not actually marching with open borders, anti-white, globalist Communists to show their Rage Against the Bush/Jewish Machine they chatter about?
Good show, guys - once these more idiot antiwar paleos start laying truth on them about real racial equality, sovereignty, and justice, they'll be flushed out of the clique and hacked to pieces
The point is people climb all over Vdare for keeping the pro-war pro-legal imigration Malkin, but they think nothing of themselves citing with approval doctrinaire open borders people/leftists like Chomsky, etc., when it suits their agenda's. I really don't see how the hard-paleo's have the right to rag over other people like Vdare for their lack of consistency when they're gushing with enthuisiam over people going to march in communist anti-war rallies.
[url=http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php?act=ST&f=12&t=7478&hl=vdare&st=0]Vdare's Fatal Flaw[/url]**
2003-05-04 19:20 | User Profile
Originally posted by AntiYuppie@May 4 2003, 13:17 ** > Original DissentÃÂ - NEWISH PROBABLY the furthest to the right of all the FR spin-offs****
I can't think of a better endorsement for this site than being labelled the most "far right" of the FR spin-offs. **
Though it's not necessarily accurate, at least to the extent that the left-right paradigm is nearly meaningless these days. Speaking only for myself, I am probably to the 'left' of nearly every Freeper on at least 75% of the issues. And, besides, on what other 'right-wing' board than this one can Noam Chomsky receive a respectful hearing?
2003-05-04 19:44 | User Profile
Originally posted by AntiYuppie@May 4 2003, 19:17 ** I'm actually somewhat worried about 2004. I'd be willing to wager that Pat Buchanan will not run, because after his dismal showing in 2000 he is widely considered to be damaged goods, even by his loyal supporters. Phillips is virtually invisible, you may as well just vote for yourself at that rate, and Browne doesn't have that much more clout either.
At this point our side doesn't have a standard bearer in the Presidential elections (unless you know something that I don't) and no amount of new magazines or websites can compensate for having a visible candidate. Buchanan's 1992 and 1996 runs did more to boost the paleoconservative cause than anything else. It's a shame nobody here is well-connected enough to work on "recruiting" somebody and thus playing kingmaker. **
Well the Buchananites are still around, albeit shaken a little bit after their bad marriage with the Perotists, and working in the Constitution and America First Parties. I'm not sure exactly what's in the pipeline, but I suspect they'll be able to come up with something ;)
I think its more important though that we work on an active infrastructure, which really involves continuing to build a whole 'nother alternative political subculture to the globalist political mainstream. Without that sort of a vital political subculture and network of organizations (including in small part perhaps forums such as this), electoral successes, even if achieved, will always be flash in the pan affairs, re: the 92 and 96 Buchanan campaigns.
2003-05-04 23:03 | User Profile
AntiYuppie: Three words:
Paul/Tancredo 2004
:th:
2003-05-05 02:26 | User Profile
Originally posted by toddbrendanfahey@May 4 2003, 23:03 ** AntiYuppie: Three words:
Paul/Tancredo 2004
:th: **
Starting to see the wisdom of your words Todd. Correct me if I'm wrong, but a Paul/Tancredo ticket sounds a bit like a Constitution Party/AmericaFirst Party Coalition (i.e. Paleolibertarian/PaleoConservative Party).
I'm still not sure of Paul's stance on immigration, but that would be the only thing that anyone here could possibly object to, especially after this constant toying with lunatic Buchanan/Green coalitions.
[url=http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php?act=ST&f=25&t=3314&hl=paul,and,tancredo]Draft Paul in 2004[/url]
2003-05-05 02:38 | User Profile
One could probably object to Paul's immigration policy, and just as easily object to Tancredo's foreign policy, which in general is consistent with that of the Administration, save the issue of Mexican relations.
2003-05-05 02:45 | User Profile
Originally posted by Phillip Augustus@May 5 2003, 02:38 ** One could probably object to Paul's immigration policy, and just as easily object to Tancredo's foreign policy, which in general is consistent with that of the Administration, save the issue of Mexican relations. **
If only you and some others on this forum were so picky on the policies of the Greens.
2003-05-05 04:08 | User Profile
The popularity of LP took a hit recently when many posters defected to Freedom Underground (see below) but it's still the first stop for any banned Freeper. So-called "flying monkeys" from FR regularly stage raids on the forum to troll the site but invariably they return better behaved months later when Robinson bans them.
ROFL
Alot of the trolls on LF are themselves "flying monkeys" from LP...Arator, ganesha, Jefferson_Adams, weikel, etc.
2003-05-05 05:23 | User Profile
After Delphi booted them, they set up on Nick Bauer's Allied Conservatives site but - following complaints by LP boss Neil McIver - their hosts shut them down again.
Anyone know why McIver prodded Delphi to shut down somone else's site? Or why anyone would even be obliged to listen to him?
2003-05-05 15:24 | User Profile
Originally posted by Centinel@May 4 2003, 23:23 ** > After Delphi booted them, they set up on Nick Bauer's Allied Conservatives site but - following complaints by LP boss Neil McIver - their hosts shut them down again.
Anyone know why McIver prodded Delphi to shut down somone else's site? Or why anyone would even be obliged to listen to him? **
The Afcon people had printed a lot of stuff about one of the people behind Liberty Post - John Kotmair. They pointed out that he had done time in prison etc.
Most of it was actually true but LP complained to their hosts and they nuked the forum.
2003-05-05 23:40 | User Profile
Originally posted by AntiYuppie@May 5 2003, 19:22 ** > Originally posted by Okiereddust@May 5 2003, 02:45 ** > Originally posted by Phillip Augustus@May 5 2003, 02:38 ** One could probably object to Paul's immigration policy, and just as easily object to Tancredo's foreign policy, which in general is consistent with that of the Administration, save the issue of Mexican relations. **
If only you and some others on this forum were so picky on the policies of the Greens. **
I've given some thought to the question of why so many on this forum (myself included) prefer old school leftists to establishment "conservatives."
On the one hand, there is the fact that many old leftists agree with us on a number of key issues, such as opposition to international finance, neocon warmongering, Zionism, etc. But I think there is more to it than that.
The most important thing paleoconservatives, libertarians, and old school leftists have in common is not their agreement about a handful of issues (especially in view of the fact that their motives for doing so are completely different), but the fact that they are more principled than establishment "liberals" or "conservatives."
What makes establishment conservatives more dangerous for the authentic right than an honest leftist is the fact that GOP conservatism (like Clintonite liberalism) is characterized by its utter lack of principle and scruples. It is better to have somebody in office who you disagree with who consitently stands for something than a poltical prostitute who will turn on a dime and stab you in the back. Many on the Old Left see the Clintonites in the same way that we see the neocons and the establishment GOP - either opportunistic liars or people with a hidden agenda. Better the opponents you know than the enemies you don't. **
AntiYuppie is exactly right, and many of his posts in the pasts have helped me put these sorts of Left-Right issues in perspective.
Many of us coming from a "conservative" political background all too often have a "knee-jerk" reaction when anything associated with "the Left" manifests. I've noticed that our Overseers and their neocon friends tend to use this to their advantage and milk that reaction for all its worth among the general public. All that someone like Rush Limbaugh has to do is call a person or policy "liberal," and lots of well-meaning "conservatives"will then reject the person or policy, regardless of the merits involved.
AY is also right to mention the "key issues" involved that basically render the old Left vs. Right divide somewhat obsolete. A better distinction to make is "nationalist" vs. "globalist." The real issues that both of the major parties ignore (or are in lock-step on) include foreign policy, trade policy, immigration, and so on, and both the Authentic Right and Authentic Left agree that the status quo of the globalist "Center" is wrong on these issues.
2003-05-06 00:11 | User Profile
**PaleoconAvatar wrote:
AY is also right to mention the "key issues" involved that basically render the old Left vs. Right divide somewhat obsolete. A better distinction to make is "nationalist" vs. "globalist."**
Yes, great example!
Leftists and paleos/nationalists really come together on that issue. While the Rush Limbaugh-types run around championing global banking and finance [read: Jewish-dominated banking and finance], both the Left and, ahem, "far Right" are busy rejecting such globalism.
[I might add, for the newbies, that there is nothing wrong with Mom-and-Pop capitalism. The problem comes when capitalism becomes Big, Global and Jewish-led, as shown here: the ten primary shareholders in the Federal Reserve banking system:
1) The Rothschild Family - London 2) The Rothschild Family - Berlin 3) The Lazard Brothers - Paris 4) Israel Seiff - Italy 5) Kuhn-Loeb Company - Germany 6) The Warburgs - Amsterdam 7) The Warburgs - Hamburg 8) Lehman Brothers - New York 9) Goldman & Sachs - New York 10) The Rockefeller Family - New York
(*notes Jewish/Jewish controlled; 8 out of 10; some say Lazards are also Jewish) ].
2003-05-06 04:01 | User Profile
Notice that Todd and Liberty Forum Picked This Up Also
[url=http://www.libertyforum.org/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=news_culture&Number=601886&Search=true&Forum=All_Forums&Words=OWK&Match=Username&Searchpage=1&Limit=25&Old=allposts&Main=601838#Post601886]Liberty Forum - Crackdown at Free Republic[/url]