21 15

Are Netflix and Amazon approaching Nazi-level propaganda?

In the 1930s, Hitler used the newly popular, and tightly regulated, radio to carefully control a narrative that the Versailles treaty that ended WW1 was oppressive, unfair, and rigged, that German culture is ideal, and that Jews were deplorable. The Nazis also blocked content from other political parties and used the radio's mass market appeal to fuel outrage. Note: fill free to replace Nazi with Stalinist, Maoist, or any other totalitarian regime.

A few concerning parallels have emerged this political season on Netflix and Amazon. This summer, Netflix flooded its home page with Black-centric films that dramatized a narrative that Black people are treated unfairly by Whites and by the "system". Netflix is now promoting "The Trial of the Chicago 7" that dramatizes a narrative that liberals are treated unfairly by Whites, the legal system, and (White) police. With just weeks away from the election, Amazon's homepage today is heavily promoting "Borat 2" which preys on Conservatives' "niceness" to trick them into compromising situations that promote a narrative that Conservatives and their way-of-life are deplorable. Targets of the film include pro-lifers, Mike Pence, and Rudy Giuliani.

These streaming services also try to block films that push back on these narratives. For example, Netflix refused to list "No Save Spaces" that highlights the war against free speech on colleges (note: we were a large funder of this film). Amazon refused to show “What Killed Michael Brown?", a documentary that shows that Michael Brown is not a noble martyr that BLM used to fuel hatred of police. However, they recently were forced to change their mind... less than two weeks before the election.

Netflix's 73 million US subscribers and Amazon Prime's 50% of the US market present these companies with the power to influence elections. They are also near monopolies with their content libraries and control of programming discovery process. We have long seen Liberal bias in social media and Google search, are Netflix and Amazon in the same league?

Amazon and Netflix are...

  • 29 votes
  • 3 votes
  • 7 votes
Admin 8 Oct 24
You must be a member of this group before commenting. Join Group

Post a comment Author often replies/likes Reply Author often replies/likes Add Photo

Be part of the movement!

Welcome to the community for those who value free speech, evidence and civil discourse.

Create your free account


Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.


It’s a mistake to assume this is a simple left/right conflict. The modern era has been swept aside and is being replaced by an anti-realist, post-modern, post-structural order.

The new era is nothing like what happened almost a century ago when strong, central governments seized power and ruled with an iron fist, propped up by appeals to patriotism, order, strong institutions and the dominant national culture.

Today, it’s the opposite, with invisible actors, fanning out from academia, and embedding themselves in the institutions they are now busily deconstructing. The message certainly sounds leftist, always based on victimhood, inequity, and the evils of wealth; but make no mistake. Our new world is based on decentralization and the fragmentation of everything from the nuclear family to the idea of borders and national identity. A group’s subjective “reality” is just one of many “realities”. The concepts of reason and truth are now based on point of view, rendering them meaningless. This makes conversation and negotiation impossible.

So expect popular culture to be full of tales of unfairness, us-against-the-system, evil governments, dangerous billionaires, injustice, and democracy as an illusion. Also expect that content which doesn’t fit this mould will be suppressed.

The right is just as susceptible to this propaganda as the left, and people on both sides feel more victimized than ever. And that’s the goal: fostering disempowerment, outrage, anger and chaos. The more disorder, the better.

In 2020, no government, institution, or corporation is willing to stand up to this asymmetrical assault from these decentralized, leaderless movements. Like the skinny, underfed communist guerrillas who took on the US in Vietnam, the post-modern, post-structuralist anti-realists are winning.

GeeMac Level 8 Oct 24, 2020

Well said! 👏👏

Can you elaborate on some places where conservatives "reality" is far from absolute reality? Global warming? Perhaps "If an underperforming person would just work harder, they could succeed"?

@Admin post-modernism has trained both left and right to become skeptics then cynics on science (and the world in general). While the right might reject empirical evidence on on climate and Covid, the left rejects science on things like GMOs or data on the failure of recycling and other environmental policies. The left also rejects verifiable data on falsehoods around race, crime and rape culture, vilifying pragmatic thinkers like Steven Pinker and Jordan Peterson. The far right meantime rejects the documented historical fact of the holocaust, and embraces unhinged conspiracy theories about everything from Jews to aliens.

The left and the right mistakenly see each other as the enemy, and remain completely ignorant of how they are both being manipulated by forces driving the new era. The remaking of the world which started around 1960 can only be compared to the upheaval after the fall of Rome ended the ancient world, or the transition from medieval times to the modern era around the 16th century.

@GeeMac I've not met anyone who has denied the Holocaust or think Jews are aliens. I've met a few who believe, probably justifiably, that Jewish people have an oversized influence in society. I think that there are probably 50x more conservatives who are skeptical on man-made global warming than Holocaust denial.

How far do you think the pendulum that starting swinging in 1960 will go before there is a correction? I think people have seen a taste of what is coming this Summer with the BLM protests/etc. If Biden wins with the Senate, the grievance wish list may start waking people up.

It's nice to see that someone else sees the failures on both sides of the road as a failure in humanity, not politics or ideology; strong statement, kudos.

@Admin I don’t think a correction is possible, anymore than medieval feudal barons could have corrected for massive change triggered by Columbus and the new world, the Tudor dynasty, and the Renaissance.

We are moving into a new era, with new rules and a new thinking. Just as the Middle Ages very wisely began to discard feudalism, superstition and brutal authoritarian rule, we are very foolishly discarding individualism, democracy, and science.

There is no going back, although fierce resistance to the upheaval will continue, if we follow historic patterns, for the next century or so. So expect more instability, not less. At this point the left and right are
both as powerless as everyone else to stop the decline of modernism and the death of Enlightenment values.

Brace yourself, it’s going to be a bumpy ride.

@TheMiddleWay Binary thinking — left vs right, rich vs. poor, black vs white, east vs west — is not only dangerous, it’s a smokescreen. I wish we could move the conversation beyond ‘us-against-them’ and take a wider view of what’s really driving the chaos.


I was repeatedly blocked and posts removed from Facebook for merely rebutting falsehoods about the President. That seems to rival NAZI Germany and the Stalinist Soviet Union.

Welcome to the club. I was deleted last year. And from YT early this year. But try misspelling the "offensive" words, like turn it to h1tLer, n.a.z.1, etc.

I was blocked from sharing this story on Facebook, regarding the questionable reputation of Dr. Fauci just this week. I have been banned for 3 days just for posting this supportive statement as my FB status (they said it went against their community standards 🤣) ❤❤❤❤TRUMP❤❤❤❤2020.

I was banned from facebbook for posting the truth. I was blocked for posting and segment, from all places, CNN!!!!

@farmerguy56, CNN, MSM, the New York Times, the Washington Post and almost all of the rest of the general media are bought and paid-for propaganda outlets, owned by a syndicate controlled by Schwab, Soros, and the vast resources of hundreds of Leftist millionaires - closet Marxists enjoying the fruits of Capitalism, willing to throw everyone else under the bus to be the new powerful Apparatchiks of the new Amerika. Hypocrites.


Considering the choices, it's tough for me to tell anymore. I do believe that, for the most part, Netflix operates under a search suggestion program based on your previous choices. However, they do have the yearly cycles of holiday special section like Holoween and Christmas suggestions.

Because of the sheer world wide scale of the BLM protests, I would imagine the majority of companies jumping at the chance to support them, had a mix of virtue signalling for monetary gain and securing their fan base type thinking. It's also how I view the majority of the celebrities and news personalities as well. Both in regards to promoting BLM, as well as the ones heavily criticizing the movement. As long as the momentum keeps airing on the side of approval, I expect the promotions will continue. That is, until they start seeing more of their customers leave. (Kinda like what's happening in sports)

Netflix will most likely survive regardless of their political affiliation. However, it would have to at least occur to them that months of this endless stream of "BLM propaganda" and "anti conservative" selections have the potential to influence the way people vote. I just think by now it's really obvious to the majority of people, both on the right and the left, and I don't think it holds much sway.

There's definitely something up with Facebook and Twitter, though. They have so much power they can afford to kick anyone and any group they want off their sites without batting an eye. Now, apparently, they can even choose what reputable news organizations are allowed on. Kayleigh McEnany as well as Bret Weinstein even got a temporary boot. (Isn't Bret progressive still?) Their trending rarely is accurate and conservatives are unicorns. (Although, I learned those who identify as unicorns are actually called Otherkin. So, now I'm not sure if it's breaking PC code to place the stigma of group ostracism by comparing unicorns to such rarities.)

Ironically, it's the Capitalist profit-motivation of streaming platforms that both take advantage of trendy topics such as Progressivism that may be the undoing of Capitalism.

@Admin I know right?! Lol it really is ironic.


Being that I am not a customer of either Amazon or Netflix, I could not say for certain what they are up to in regards to promoting known leftwing propaganda, aside from that I would not in the least be surprised if they are engaged in such. By the way, such propaganda goes way beyond being anything truly liberal, the race-baiting rhetoric is a manifestation of the far-left politically correct progressive movement, that of who absolutely disdain individualism regardless of them pretending to care about the individual liberties of perceived minorities.


Live by sword, die by sword.
Big techs are doomed, and their days are numbered.


All dead and gone!

Lt-JW Level 7 Oct 24, 2020

None of them because of their censorship or lack thereof though.

What will replace them?


It's everyone's guesses. Could you in your wildest imagination predict the events of 2020, back in 2019?



“..there is a golden opportunity, an untapped niche, for a new network to run conservative content and be successful!”

Netflix is a $215B company and Amazon is off the chart at 1.6 TRILLION. These two companies, along with Google, have economies of scale and market domination that a new conservative media company would need billions in startup investment to compete. Gab, Minds, Parler, etc have a fraction of a percent of traffic as the large oligopolies ALSO have expensive mainstream content that people want. The giants are no longer simply private companies but have become platforms similar to the telephone system or utilities. By them censoring content for political purposes, they have become propagandists. This must stop immediately for democracy to survive.

@Admin very good points, and I’m inclined to agree with you. They’ve crossed the line and it’s obviously bullshit, but in terms of principles, I’m also for conservatives putting their money where their mouths are. I’ve asked the same question (as have many) on Gab: “where are those deep-pocketed conservatives, and even just people who disagree with censorship or want to have a more free exchange of ideas (of which I’m sure there are many centrists and even..a couple, maybe..leftists)?”

Also, people who don’t agree with the left’s bullshit have to walk away, as much as that’s possible, like they have with the NBA, the NFL, ESPN, and many other businesses. If it’s leisure or otherwise unnecessary for someone to give time or money to an organization, they need to walk the fuck away.

It would have to be an equivalent to AM radio in the 80s but yes. Absolutely yes.

@tonkotsu I'm a deep pocketed classical liberal who realized that a conservative backbone gives society its strength to be liberal... but I've been unable to move the needle. I started [] with Dave Rubin and it's growing, but not yet big enough to compete.

@Admin I sincerely thank you! Mike Glover from Fieldcraft Survival has talked your organization up quite a bit, and it looks like he’s got a good thing going with American Contingency.

@tonkotsu Yeah, Mike is really crushing it. His "be prepared" and be self-reliant message is especially timely.

First I'd heard of from you or anywhere else!

Sounds like a Facebook/Patreon mashup? Create a social network like Facebook but instead of ad-revenue, support it like Patreon through subscription. Somethin like this?


Starve Hollywood and their spinoffs. Spend your $$$ dining out instead

Absolutely. Do anything other than spend your time or your money on these people.
Just walk away.


Immoral is not the same as unfair.

Criminal is not the same as unfair.

Fraud is not the same as unfair.

Treason is not the same as unfair.

When are people going to call a spade a spade?

Be careful, "Call a spade a spade" is now racist 😉[]


A racist mind thinks that their way of seeing things is "better" than someone else's, and then an attempt is made to force that "better" view upon their target.

I'm one of those people who believes in The Golden Rule in the context in which it is reported when it was reported, recorded, publicized, as Mathew 7:12.

The Golden Rule is the law. It is a "better" view for those who try it on themselves, and those who try it on other people.

A case in point:

Person A: Call a spade a spade (intending to mean: call it what it is, be truthful, rather than labeling something with a false or misleading word)

Person B: That is racist.

Person A: Is that intended by you to inspire me to do the same back to you? If so, then I will not join your cult, rather, I will do to you something good (peaceful, truthful, accurate, and with the intent to inspire the same done back to me), and let's see how this Golden Rule stuff works in the real world. Someone seeking racism, to be their world according to their world view, can inspire other people to be racist too, but that may not be easy when dealing with people who prefer to know the facts that matter in time and place each time someone chooses to step outside the law, to perpetrate fraud, to incite violence, or lesser, or greater, criminal acts. The video offered, and the statement offered, are either useful for their content, or not, and if not, then the consumer can choose a path that avoids further contact with "worse" things, and the consumer can choose a path that takes them in contact with "better" things as they see fit, so long as no one steps outside the law along the way. If someone steps outside the law along the way, someone is then duty bound to help defend further harm done to innocent people, so as to inspire at least two things:

  1. More and more (exponentially growing) people are inspired to help other people defend the innocent from the guilty

  2. Less and less (exponentially growing smaller in numbers of) people are inspired to step outside the law, deter such things before they happen, and help people make better choices.

If someone claims that I, or the people broadcasting the comedy on Saturday Night Live, or rebroadcasting the skit, are stepping outside the law, then what would a duty bound individual be inspired to do if that was their opinion as to what happened at that crime scene that they witnessed personally?

There is no law in America, hasn't been since 1789, so there either is no crime, and no cause to have law in America, or the criminals took over and anyone can do anything to anyone else, because now Might Makes Right, so the only rule is Do unto others before they have a chance to do to you, and you can do things to others that you would defend against them doing to you: RULE BY CRIMINAL MEANS.

If that does not help, I can discuss further, and if someone innocent is injured by my words, and they can prove it beyond doubt to me, or better yet to 12 randomly selected judges on a jury, then I will be more than willing to adjust my behavior to avoid further steps I take outside the law.


Let's first talk about your opening line. The comparison to hitler, aside from making Godwin proud, fails because neither Netflix nor Amazon are state controlled. In fact, they are the embodiment of the holy conservative principles of the free market. They give the market what it wants and have grown so popular because of it that they constantly fall under the threat of being deemed a monopoly.

And that comparison is where I feel that a lot of this narrative fails. A lot of conservative producers are upset because they are not being promoted by outlets that very well may have a liberal bias. But those corporations are under no obligations to be fair and balanced. Fox news is under no obligation to run liberal content anymore than CNN is under obligation to run conservative content. Again, making reference to the conservative ideology of a free market and personal freedom, of "you do you and I do me", of having as little State control over the individual incorporations as necessary, then a corporation should be free to promote anyone it wants or doesn't want as long as it is more monetarily successful.

In fact, what does it tell you that these outlets can be immensely successful even without the content that conservatives want run on these outlets? This tells me two things.
One that that conservative content is not necessary for the success of a media outlet. That the choices that these outlets are making for the content is enough for the continued success of their respective corporations.
And two, that if there is this hunger from the public for conservative content that isn't being run on existing outlets, rather than force existing outlets to run that content, there is a golden opportunity, an untapped niche, for a new network to run conservative content and be successful! This is literally what Fox news did to combat the liberal bias of CNN and MSNBC and was quite successful for it. In fact, I would also say that that is also the impetus behind this site,, as a means to give a voice to some of the conservative content that was not allowed on facebook, youtube, and another of admins earlier project,

Maybe it's time for conservative producers to stop complaining about existing outlets not running their content and trying to force existing outlets to run their content and instead focus on creating an outlet of their own instead. After all, corporations have absolutely no legal or moral imperative to equality of topics, viewpoints, or political leanings, so begging for YouTube and Netflix to run content they don't want to run will in my opinion never get anyone anywhere

Netflix is a $215B company and Amazon is off the chart at 1.6 TRILLION. These two companies, along with Google, have economies of scale and market domination that a new conservative media company would need billions in startup investment to compete. Gab, Minds, Parler, etc have a fraction of a percent of traffic as the large oligopolies ALSO have expensive mainstream content that people want. The giants are no longer simply private companies but have become platforms similar to the telephone system or utilities. By them censoring content for political purposes, they have become propagandists. This must stop immediately for democracy to survive.

Just because a company is worth billions doesn't mean that you need billions to compete with it. You just need a better product, one that fulfills a niche market, and one that attracts a underserved populationt'. Consider that amazon, google, and Netflix all were small fries compared to the walmarts, Blockbuster videos, and Yahoo search. But they had a strong business model, original ideas, and now managed to overtake the competition. Its not like the conservative sphere is devoid of money and rich people that would fund such a venture... If they felt that such a venture would return on their investment.

I again use Fox news as an excellent example. Instead of demanding that CNN or MSNBC accept their content or that somehow they should be broken up, they created an alternative source of information and have succeeded.

Why is the Fox news model, that worked, not sufficient inspiration for a ConsevFlix or RightTube startup?

@TheMiddleWay In short, Fox news doesn't require as much capital as they don't create expensive content. After twenty years of growing content, Netflix Amazon and Google have the critical mass to support profitability. That is, they can get more views across millions of titles to get the ad revenue. It's a bait and switch that big media has turned political once they gained hegemony.

Neither Netflix nor Amazon started out by creating content themselves. Netflix started in 1997 and their first content was 2013. Amazon in 1994 and their first content in 2015. So they have been "growing content" business for between 5 and 7 years after between 16 to 21 years of being in the non-content business.

Could Walmart, with it's conservative lean, not do the same if there was demand for a less biased provider than Amazon and Netflix? Having started in 1962, they could conceivably devastate any competition.


This has been the topic of discussion on a few sites. Some media types have said the results of an election can most definitely be influenced by our modern propagandists, claiming a swing of 20% is not out of reach. But as with any propaganda, the target audience doesn’t know the extent their opinions are being shaped...

I understand there was a federal law that was repealed in the early 90s that had required news to be impartial. With the internet in it’s infancy I don’t know if the lawmakers had understood the long term effects.

However, even if that law stood, amazon and netflix would not be bound by it as they are not news providers.

Consider as a counter example that clear channel (now IHeartRadio) is the LARGEST radio provider and has come under criticism in the past for "censorship" of anti-conservative views (such as against george bush or purportedly not giving local democratic candidates equal air time). Yet the conservatives didn't complain about it, didn't make it a point to combat that "censorship", that propaganda. Nor did the government force them to do otherwise because even when the law held, if it's not news, it not mandated to be impartial.

@TheMiddleWay The equal time rule is something completely different

It is. This is the point I was making: not being news, said rule doesn't apply even if it weren't repealed

@TheMiddleWay but that is not what I was writing about. I was referring to the fairness doctrine.

From wiki -

The fairness doctrine is not the same as the equal-time rule. The fairness doctrine deals with discussion of controversial issues, while the equal-time rule deals only with political candidates.

Ah. Gotcha. Yeah, repealed 1987. It would be interesting to see what the media landscape would be today with it still in place. Though I have to say, given that it was up to the FCC to determine fairness, depending on who was in charge "fairness" might not be very fair. As well, the fundamental reason for it being repealed, that it likely violated the free speech rights of broadcasters, I think still has merit today.

@TheMiddleWay I hate to think of the federal agencies, unfettered, in charge of anything - kinda like the FBI.


They're just doing what they think will sell while at the same time keep their butts out of PR hell. I hope most viewers are smart enough to see what's up.


I don't know because I refuse to pay for TV, and I'm not American.
I also look to all sides of the debate for information on issues and try to avoid unsubstantiated claims or conspiracies as sources for information.
But I wouldn't be surprised if they did.


You ought to see the photo of the "censors" at Facebook. At least in the one I saw, every one of them was wearing a Turbin. So either Muslim or Hindu judging American values. No conflict there, right?

I hear they hired mainland Chinese to do the censoring as well, all under the excuse of inclusivity.

@eschatologyguy they have eight or nine Chinese PhD CCP members here in Seattle

@Xtra. Didn't know that. Kinda fits that area though, doesn't it?


To be honest, yes there's propaganda and it's expected nowadays. But there's so much other good stuff on Netflix on Amazon to watch. Its your own choice, if you want to not watch or support things because you don't like it, it's up to you.


Let me see if I can reframe this in more familiar terms. There is a large segment of companies like Netflix and YouTube and other liberal media which for the sake of ease I will label as "white". As well there is a large segment of conservative commentators, right-wing movie makers, and others which for the sake of these I will label as "black"

So it turns out that the whites have all the power and have a great store of advantage over the blacks. They use this power to exclude the blacks from promoting their message and thus the blacks remain in the minority, they remain underserved, unheard. As well, using this power, let's call it privilege, the whites are able to further their own agenda and promote their own propaganda while not allowing the blacks to have a voice. In this way, the whites are able to maintain their power and further their own interests.

In response, the blacks are asking for more representation within the white sphere. Or that the white sphere share some of that power with the black minority so that the country is more equitable and more fair. However, the whites resist this and do not want to share power with the blacks saying instead that the blacks should work harder and that the US is a fair system such that if they aren't succeeding, that is not the fault of the whites because they worked for it but the fault of the blacks because they have a culture that doesn't allow them to succeed in the white sphere of influence. The whites maintain that they have no special privilege, that they are not responsible for the economic factors that led up to their success in the past because in the present everybody has an equal opportunity to succeed and if blacks aren't succeeding, that's their own fault and they should do something about it... Not simply demand that whites share some of their privilege.

Does that summarize the argument of conservatives producers (" blacks" ) against liberal media ( " whites" ) accurately in your opinion?

Censoring conservative videos would therefore be the same as whites lynching blacks. It's not that the ideas don't compete but they are killed on the spot

No... apples and oranges.
Jane Elliot did it so much better and within a simpler more accurate context.

How are they killed on the spot if you provided an example of "no safe spaces" having found a home on the christian-oriented provider Salem radio?

It's not the home that would give you that sweet sweet White money, but it's not a lynching but still discrimination within this model.

So here we come to my punchline:

Why should something be done to help conservative media content that conservatives don't want done to help actual living minorities?

Why should socialist principles of wealth redistribution (wealth in this context being viewership and access to ad revenue) and government regulation be applied to Netflix and Youtube to help the conservative media minority when those same principles are scorned when democrats, BLM, and others propose it for the general population minority in this country?

After all, a popular conservative view is that there is no White Privilege, that there is no Systemic Prejudice. Yet when it their turn to be in the minority, as it is with conservative media, suddenly there is "White Privilege", with netflix and youtube taking on the role of whites, and there is "Systemic Prejudice", with conservative media taking on the role of blacks.

Seems to me that when a conservative is in the majority, there is no privilege, there is no systemic prejudice, and even if there were, socialist means of addressing those problems are not welcome but rather hard work and strong moral values are the solution against a more entrenched majority...
but when they are in the minority, there is privilege, there is systemic prejudice and socialist means of addressing those problems are welcome with hard work and strong moral values not being enough against a more entrenched majority.

I think if conservatives were more open to socialist principles of government regulation and wealth redistribution (which is what is being asked for in our current discussion), there wouldn't be this problem. But as they are, it only seems fair that the same principles they apply to others be applied to them.

@TheMiddleWay I think a point you're missing is that devout Liberals or Conservatives are not the target audience for main page (political) promotion on Netflix/Amazon... it is the undecided or centrist vote. Sure, the devout Conservative could go find a new streaming service that caters to them, but it's super inconvenient compared to having an Amazon Prime account where much streaming content is free.

I get the sense that you are saying that Netflix/Amazon's political bias and censorship of conservative views are OK because "systemic racism" and "white privilege" are true. This is a FREE SPEECH website whose reason to exist is allow as wide a range of opinions to be discussed as possible. I will call out censorship, especially politically motivated, on platforms who have near monopolistic dominance as silencing legitimate voices is evil.

I watched "What Killed Michael Brown?" last night [] ... Shelby Steele made a solid and level-headed case that, aside from the fact that "Hands Up, Don't Shoot" was a lie, the bigger reason for Brown's death was that the growth of the welfare state had unintended consequences (e.g., dehumanizing housing projects, loss of agency, and extraction of fathers) that harmed Blacks.

Your claim that "conservatives don't want to help minorities" is both unfair and untrue. Conservatives seem to appeal to minorities' potential to succeed whereas Liberals claim that minorities have no agency to succeed without external support. I've never met someone who actually wants minorities to fail.

I want to make clear that it's not that conservatives want minorities to fail. And I'm totally against help without agency: I've been vocally against Affirmative Action ever since I came to this country as I always felt that if I got into college or a job that way, I'd never know if it was on my merits or because of some quota.

However, in the current atmosphere, in the USA, we have minorities trying to bring attention to the problems they face, to the perspective they have, to the failure of representation and the hurdles to progress they face. And it seems to me that conservatives aren't willing to engage in this discussion, to hear this perspective. It's not that they want them to fail; it's that they don't want to talk about what they feel they need to succeed.

With that said:

  • I think it is more likely that money drives Amazon and Netflix's choice of programming than Politics. I have no doubt there is a liberal bias to the media but as others have pointed out, BLM and SJW are very hot right now and sell well. Hence, you find a lot of content on front page that seems to promote democratic ideals. I have ZERO doubt that if 9/11 were to occur right now, "America First" and the Military movies would be front and center not because they promote republican politics, but because it sells well.

  • Inconvenience is only the case because nobody has made it convenient for them. This is what I'm saying about creating a platform to cate to this crowd... it wouldn't take billions... just make it more convenient for

  • My analogy between White Privilege/Systemic Racism is that I see a parallel in what a conservative media minority is asking of a liberal media majority... and what a liberal racial minority is asking of a conservative racial majority. That I'm seeing the conservatives not demanding actions about liberal racial minorities difficulties but demanding action about conservative media minorities difficulties. It's unbalanced in my view. It's a learning opportunity in another view, for conservatives to feel what it's like to be in the minority, what it's like to not be heard, and maybe, just maybe, be more empathetic to what racial minorities perspective.


Oh dear, now that Trump your rapey racist President has lost it must be time to find a conspiracy theory to explain it. Couple of things immediately way wrong with your hypothesis 1. The Versailles treaty was grossly unfair, humiliating and draconian and has been widely and objectively determined by historians to have created the conditions that led to the rise pf Nazism. Control of the media came after the Nazis siezed power, the British media also at tje same time was pro nazi as was the British Royal Family. The Versaille treaty was effectively one branch of the German aristocracy (the English cousins) fucling over and humiliating the German cousins after the pointless slaughter of WW1. The Russian cousins jad thanfully been dispatched by the Bolsheviks. 2. the enslavement transportation and human exploitation pf millions of black Africans and its legacy through racism discrimination and exploitation through to today could hardly be described as fair. The trial of Bobby Seale and the Chicago 7 as portrayed is based entirely on the recorded transcripts of the court, that part is 100% accurate, though Bobby Seale was actually bound and gagged for a week in the actual trial for which he should never have been there.
Not a bad film and the white liberals did come across as assholes though their cause of opposing the draft and the Vietnam War was right.

N0DD Level 6 Oct 25, 2020

You present a believable link of Liberals to Nazis.

Just proving that history is a matter of perspective from which side you are on.

This message has been approved by Karl Marx and his brothers.

@WayneHawthorne i don't believe you.

@TimTuolomne no historians job is to uncover the facts of history, and sure to offer different perspectives to elucidate those facts and interpret the evidence such as it is. History is not a matter of opinion its a matter of record dependamt on the manner of recording and by whom. For example nobody would take Churchills "History" of WWII as accurate, ots a polemical aggrandising tome beloved of the likes of Thatcher and Johnson but essentially just a load of jingoistic propaganda.

@N0DD a load of jingoistic propaganda?

The brainwashed leftists who delight in deconstructing and demolishing Churchill’s superhuman feat, or lose sleep because Thatcher hurt some feelings, ought to focus on Stalin and Mao, whose legacy is the murder of 100-million people in the 20th century.

You will never hear a glassy-eyed woke-prog elucidate that legacy.


Unfairly, but not illegally.


What then is the solution if you see this as a problem?
Staying true to conservative principles, what would those that see them as being propagandists propose be done?
Remember, stay true to conservative principles; no cheating and taking a page from progressive strategies.


Any conflicts of interests you might want to disclose?

I too took notice when he said "we were large funders of this film".
Who is John Galt?

@TheMiddleWay @WilyRickWiles I just read "Atlas Shrugged" this month... an ideal society should have some form of Objectivism ( "the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute" ) in its mix. I am the inventor of the online shopping cart, web banner ad networks, and built the first social networking site which has registered over 600m members since it started. I wrote this site, in part, to better understand issues and to guide my charitable work. In addition to donating to environmental causes, I now try to fund causes that promote truth over false dogma regardless of politics.


I just read "Atlas Shrugged" this month...

Ufff.... I did it once; never again. The first half of the book was really great. The mystery; the strong characters, the Shyamalan reveal.
But then it got preachy. WAY too preachy and the plot was lost to ideological meanderings.
That 60 page monologue alone... damn!

I am the inventor of the online shopping cart, web banner ad networks, and built the first social networking site which has registered over 600m members since it started.

My superpower is a penchant for useless serendipity and coincidence: I guess my John Galt comment was both timely as you wouldn't have got it last month and more accurate than I would have thought given your past enterprises. 😉

After close to 3 years of sporadic interactions with you, I guess a "Nice to meet you!" is finally in order. 😀


What about the right wing that dominates talk radio and evening TV news?

Right wing news is basically Fox. There are not a shortage of news outlets as the start up costs are low. However streaming on large platforms are subject to their review and censor.

@Admin Thinking more about networks like Sinclair and iHeartMedia.

@WilyRickWiles [] seems like they own lots of properties. Again, I've not made claims that news media have controlling power as much as social media, search, content companies. However, a case could be made that Wapo/NYT/CNN/etc, by shifting left, have the ability to influence centrists who didn't realized they shifted.

Write Comment