“Time To Mute The President”: Former Twitter and Google Executive Calls For Trump To Be Banned From Social Media Until After The Election

YouTube Screengrab (CNN)

Peter Greenberger, a former Twitter and Google executive, is calling for the social media accounts of President Donald Trump to be shutdown for the remainder of the election. For those of us who have criticized calls for censorship from Democratic leaders for years, the demand is yet another example of the slippery slope of censorship that awaits this country with increasing regulation of speech on social media.

Congressional leaders like House Intelligence Committee Chair Adam Schiff have called for labeling and removal of material with some members directly threatening a legislative crackdown. Speaker Nancy Pelosi denounced Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg for resisting speech monitoring and censorship as a matter of free speech. Pelosi lashed out that those who want to preserve a free speech zone are “all about making money,” ignoring free speech advocates who have no financial interest in these companies. Joe Biden has demanded that prior Trump criticism of mail-in voting be stripped from the Internet and social media. This is an effort to enlist companies like Twitter and Facebook to regulate political speech.
And it is increasing succeeding.
The recent move against the Hunter Biden story is an example of how these companies have been used to inhibit access to stories that are harmful to Joe Biden or beneficial to Donald Trump. Yesterday, the FBI reportedly confirmed that it has the Biden laptop and that it does not believe that the material on the laptop is Russian disinformation. Previously, the Director of National Intelligence criticized Schiff for declaring that the laptop was clearly Russian disinformation and said that Congress has received no such intelligence.
Despite the recent abusive act by Twitter, Greenberger is demanding that these companies go even further to ban all access of Trump to social media. Presumably, Greenberger would eventually ban surrogates who convey Trump’s views or comments.
CNN considered Greenberger’s proposal credible enough to give him an entire segment with Jake Tapper who observed that the suggestion is pretty “extreme.” Greenberger however did not flinch in calling for censorship of political speech:
“I agree, it is, and extreme times demand extreme suggestions. I did not come to this opinion lightly. I believe that the tech companies, generally, have a responsibility to be neutral. I think in the case of Twitter specifically, it’s been a great champion of the democratization of information as well as a strong supporter of freedom of expression. However, we are in a unique, and, I believe, a fraught moment in time with a president who is desperate and he’s facing a very difficult situation. I think the time is to mute the president, temporarily, while votes are being cast right now and until the winner is decided.”

It is certainly comforting to know that Greenberger is not gutting free speech “lightly.” However, the most telling statement is his reference to the “democratization of information” which appears to mean the control of the majority over the speech of the minority.  It shows how democracy can be easily confused with tyranny. The difference is that this censorship is being meted out by private companies at the behest of democratic leaders.

Like every censor in history, Greenberger wraps himself in the cloak of certainty and righteousness. By declaring the President’s political views to be “misinformation,” he claims license to “turn[] off some of the key engagement features of the platform in order to slow down the cause of misinformation.”

This is all of course to protect the public from information that it should not read, according to Greenberger and the social media companies.  The silence or even support of many on the left on such censorship calls is chilling. Free speech is now often portrayed as a danger to democracy as opposed to the very right guaranteed in a democratic system of governance. Greenberger is the cheerful face of censorship, thrilling a CNN audience with the idea of removing an unpopular president from social media platforms. His extremism is not nearly as unnerving as the fact that such proposals are now deemed plausible or possible.

129 thoughts on ““Time To Mute The President”: Former Twitter and Google Executive Calls For Trump To Be Banned From Social Media Until After The Election”

  1. Since Twitter is now a platform for international relations, might we begin with the case of the Ayatollah Khamenei’s anti-Zionist tweets and work our way down the scale of “hateful conduct”? What do you think of Israel’s argument for censorship in this case, Mr. Turley?

    https://www.israeltoday.co.il/read/analysis-israel-asked-twitter-to-ban-khamenei-heres-why/

    https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/hateful-conduct-policy

  2. Video clip has surfaced…..

    ‘Well, there it is.

    Kamala’s husband says ‘I am married to the next President of the United States’…. the cat is out of the bag ladies and gentlemen.’ @abdipopulist

    ‘Well, there it is.

    Kamala’s husband says ‘I am married to the next President of the United States’…. the cat is out of the bag ladies and gentlemen.’

    ————————————————–

    Kamala is running for president while Joe Biden hides in his basement.

      1. We know it is the Harris/Biden ticket and that Kamala is the real candidate for POTUS. She’s slipped and said it more than once.

    1. Meanwhile Kamala has yet to answer reporter questions nor has she held a press conference since Joe Biden put her on the ticket.

      1. The Deep Deep State ensconced Obama.

        The Deep Deep State will demonstrate its prowess and ensconce Harris, who couldn’t win a vote in the democrat primary.

        The 2nd American Revolution has already taken place.

        Communists conquered America and Americans allowed it to happen.

  3. REGARDING BELOW:

    “We’ll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false.”

    – William Casey, CIA Director 1981-1987

  4. FBI letter today to Ron Johnson, chairman of the Senate Ley’s Get Hunter Biden Committee.

    “…….Regarding the subject of your letter, we have nothing to
    add at this time to the October 19th public statement by the Director of National Intelligence
    about the available actionable intelligence. If actionable intelligence is developed, the FBI in
    consultation with the Intelligence Community will evaluate the need to provide defensive
    briefings to you and the Committee pursuant to the established notification framework.
    Finally, as the FBI advised the Committee in its letter, dated October 5, 2020, consistent
    with longstanding Department of Justice (Department) policy and practice, the FBI can neither
    confirm nor deny the existence of any ongoing investigation or persons or entities under
    investigation, including to Members of Congress. As the Inspector General firmly reminded the
    Department and the FBI in recent years, this policy is designed to preserve the integrity of all
    Justice Department investigations and the Department’s ability to effectively administer justice
    without political or other undue outside influences. Therefore, the FBI cannot provide any
    additional information in response to the enumerated questions in your letter….”

  5. “If Comey had indicted Hillary, Comey would have convicted Obama.”

    – Andrew C. McCarthy, National Review (paraphrased)
    ___________________________________________

    “If Wray had indicted Hunter Biden, Wray would have convicted Joe.”

    – Anonymous (paraphrased)
    ______________________

    No Deep Deep State actor gets indicted. Period.

    Christopher Wray is a dutiful soldier of the Deep Deep State.

  6. Peter Greenberger is a mortal enemy of the U.S. Constitution through his call for arbitrary denial of the freedom of speech.

    Peter Greenberger espouses tyranny and dictatorship, in this case, the “dictatorship of the proletariat.”

    Peter Greenberger is a communist.

    Joshua, who succeeded Moses, killed every living thing of his enemy in Jericho, in order that the Israelites would not be attacked from the rear as they proceed into Canaan and the “Promised Land.”

    How, pray tell, shall nations address mortal enemies?

  7. It appears I had the wrong idea about Turley, thought he was a moderate intellectually honest observer who was willing to support conservative views largely orphaned among academics. But he’s mostly merely parroting propaganda and disinformation, sometimes in clearly intellectually dishonest ways. Might as well watch Fox if I want that kind of thing.

    *

    The point that’s most annoying that way in this piece isn’t really part of its main argument:

    “Previously, the Director of National Intelligence criticized Schiff for declaring that the laptop was clearly Russian disinformation and said that Congress has received no such intelligence.”

    Again, and now Schiff himself has pointed this out too, Ratcliffe willfully or inexcusably ignorantly misrepresented what Schiff had said, which never included a claim that the laptop itself or the material on it is Russian disinfo.

    But Turley ignores that, and spreads the false charge against Schiff, repeatedly. There’s no good excuse for that.

    *

    The biggest problem with this blog entry, though, is that it continues a trend here of largely ignoring the weight of the reasons for the calls for censorship, reasons that must be addressed to make his analyses useful. Instead what we get is often mere over-the-top alarmism wrapped in “the cloak of certainty and righteousness,” to use his own words about those he criticizes.

    “Free speech is now often portrayed as a danger to democracy as opposed to the very right guaranteed in a democratic system of governance.”

    First, as Turley must know, free speech on privately-owned social media isn’t generally a right guaranteed in our democratic system of governance. Hard to tell what he could be thinking there.

    More to the point, free speech *is* a danger to democracy. Democracy is always endangered by its own freedoms, which must be carefully nurtured and pruned to preserve it. The founders understood that, and understood that no right or general good is absolute. Presenting the issues here as simple black and white doesn’t accomplish anything very useful.

    I disagree with Greenberger, but I understand his concerns, and the point often made about Trump that he flouts Twitter’s rules, which itself would normally be a sufficient reason to suspend an account. What Turley needs to do is address the real dangers to democracy of Trump’s and others’ misinformation that concern Greenberger, and suggest how best to address them.

    The answer isn’t clearly to just let them run wild, as that can undermine the democratic process, subjecting it to harmful manipulation on a scale new to democracy, a scale that may be truly dangerous.

    1. Sanpete, I think you also might have said the 1st amendment does not cover yelling “fire” in a crowded theater. Remember that in 2016 the investigation into the Trump campaign by the FBI and specifically the STeele Dossier where not made public until after the election. Now we have the guy – and his cult followers – who benefited from that traditional FBI practice demanding that suspect salacious material – which by the way does not prove anything about Joe Biden – be released within 2 weeks of this election. It seems they were spoiled by the Comey revelation about Hillary’s investigation in 2016 and now expect another election should be given to them as being only fair. Turley’s BS is embarrassing for anyone, but especially a law professor.

      1. Yes, it’s well recognized that free speech isn’t an absolute right legally or morally. Turley is avoiding the hard work here.

    2. “Schiff himself has pointed this out too, Ratcliffe willfully or inexcusably ignorantly misrepresented what Schiff had said, which never included a claim that the laptop itself or the material on it is Russian disinfo”

      You’re either lying or your completely clueless, Sanpete.

      Not only did Schiff make that claim to Wolf Blitzer, he made it repeatedly during the interview.

      Transcript:

      https://twitter.com/ByronYork/status/1317432785070706688/photo/1

      “We know that this whole smear on Joe Biden comes from the Kremlin.”

      “But, clearly, the origins of this whole smear are from the Kremlin.”

      “I think we know who the driving force behind this smear has been all along and it’s been the president and the Kremlin.”

      President Trump’s “been the gift that doesn’t stop giving from the Kremlin.”

      “This particular smear though has also been acknowledged to come from the Kremlin.”

      – Adam Schiff

      Now, go play in your sand box, Petey. That’s some weak sauce.

      1. “You’re either lying or your completely clueless, Sanpete.”

        Amazing how hyperpartisanship makes even the plainest reality invisible to the hyperpartisan, including how unintentionally ironic hyperpartisan commentary so often is.

        Obviously none of what you quoted says or implies the laptop or its contents are a Russian op. The smear attached to them, however, does have its origin in Russia, as Schiff rightly points out.

        1. I have no fear of being called a partisan. Some consider it a compliment. But here, let’s learn about “the theory of the partisan” from Carl Schmitt, long dead, but a prophetic voice on politics

          from his wiki entry

          Theory of the Partisan
          Schmitt’s Theory of the Partisan originated in two lectures delivered during 1962,[40] and has been seen as a rethinking of The Concept of the Political.[41] It addressed the transformation of war in the post-European age, analysing a specific and significant phenomenon that ushered in a new theory of war and enmity. It contains an implicit theory of the terrorist, which during the 21st century has resulted in yet another new theory of war and enmity. In the lectures, Schmitt directly tackles the issues surrounding “the problem of the Partisan” figure: the guerrilla or revolutionary who “fights irregularly” (p. 3).[42] Both because of its scope, with extended discussions on historical figures like Napoleon Bonaparte, Vladimir Lenin and Mao Zedong, as well as the events marking the beginning of the 20th century, Schmitt’s text has had a resurgence of popularity. Jacques Derrida, in his Politics of Friendship remarked:

          Despite certain signs of ironic distrust in the areas of metaphysics and ontology, The Concept of the Political was, as we have seen, a philosophical type of essay to ‘frame’ the topic of a concept unable to constitute itself on philosophical ground. But in Theory of the Partisan, it is in the same areas that the topic of this concept is both radicalized and properly uprooted, where Schmitt wished to regrasp in history the event or node of events that engaged this uprooting radicalisation, and it is precisely there that the philosophical as such intervenes again.[43]

          Schmitt concludes Theory of the Partisan with the statement: “The theory of the partisan flows into the question of the concept of the political, into the question of the real enemy and of a new nomos of the earth.”[44] Schmitt’s work on the Partisan has since spurred comparisons with the post-9/11 ‘terrorist’ in recent scholarship.[45]

          https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/schmitt/#ConPolCriLib

          1. The word is hyperpartisan, and the point isn’t to make you fear it but to recognize it and its effects.

            I have have nothing against partisans that aren’t hyperpartisans. Hyperpartisans are unable to see past their partisan beliefs and goals. As a result, reality (including irony) eludes them. Hyperpartisanship displaces all other values.

            Hyperpartisanship is also anti-Christian, which is highly ironic for many hyperpartisans who pride themselves on being Christian. Shows how politics is deeper than religion in this country.

            1. “Hyperpartisans are unable to see past their partisan beliefs and goals. As a result, reality (including irony) eludes them. Hyperpartisanship displaces all other values.”

              Sanpete, that is a perfect description of you.

              1. Your reflective habit of reflexively responding to every criticism by saying, “No, it’s you!” is on full display. Again, if it’s true you should be able to show it. Good luck!

                    1. In my replies I have shown it over and over again that you wordplay and have a paucity of fact and logic. You get nasty when you realize you don’t have reasonable answers. You just demonstrated that in your most recent accusations already replied to.

            1. “Partisanship is not a compliment.”

              Prairie, look at the quote below from Britannica.

              “Jewish partisan, one of approximately 20,000–30,000 irregular fighters who participated in the Jewish resistance against Nazi Germany and its allies during World War II. In western Europe those Jewish resisters often joined forces with other organized paramilitary groups, but in eastern Europe, where anti-Semitism made collaboration difficult or even dangerous, all-Jewish partisan groups were formed.”

              1. Allan,
                I’m pretty sure that’s not the meaning of partisan the Nazi party member Carl Schmitt was referring to, nor is it the common understanding of the word partisan. Nancy Pelosi is a partisan and that’s not a good thing

                1. OK, it’s just that Kurtz referred to himself as a partisan and then you placed this statement ”
                  “Partisanship is not a compliment.” as a standalone statement. I thought that unfairly reflected on Kurtz.

                  1. Since Kurtz is highlighting the dictatorship-supporting Nazi Schmitt’s discussion of partisan, I am not convinced he is referring to the Jewish partisans. I am concerned the partisan definition he is choosing to align with is more along the lines of the partisanship of Nancy Pelosi, just on the opposite side of the aisle.

                    1. I am trying to read quickly about Schmitt’s Theory and origins. I have an unsettled, ugly feeling about it, but I need to make sure my understanding is accurate, nonetheless. The Nazis did take from Bernays, who was Jewish, so maybe there are, nonetheless peripheral connections between the Jewish Partisans and his Theory.

                      The standard understanding of partisan is most certainly antithetical to collaboration and discourse, though.

                    2. The issue of partisans in history and politics is the subject of some of Schmitt’s work. It applies without moral valuation to whatever partisans were or may yet emerge. It seems that he started his subject with the “guerillas” who were the Spanish anti-Napoleon partisans of the 19th century. Certainly he had in mind the communist partisans who succeeded in taking over Russia in 1917 too. You can read about that below.

                      Of course it could apply to Jewish partisans in Poland or the Jewish partisans in the British Mandate of Palestine prior to the establishment of Israel in 1947. Or it might apply to some “nationalist” partisans here or there. It may apply to the Taliban. it might apply to the emergence of ANTIFA-BLM or if the Democrats get their blue wave and send Trump voters into hiding then it might apply to us one day. In short give it a read and see what you can get out of it before you wag your finger at me. I could care less. The purpose of political philosophy is understanding and not just propaganda or attribution of moralistic judgments.

                      So Prarie, here is an extended quote from Schmitt’s wiki entry. I continue to recommend his work as relevant and timely for understanding politics.

                      “The Concept of the Political
                      Schmitt changed universities in 1926, when he became professor of law at the Handelshochschule in Berlin, and again in 1932, when he accepted a position in Cologne. It was from lectures at the Deutsche Hochschule für Politik in Berlin that he wrote his most famous paper, “Der Begriff des Politischen” (“The Concept of the Political”), in which he developed his theory of “the political”.[36] Distinct from party politics, “the political” is the essence of politics. While churches are predominant in religion or society is predominant in economics, the state is predominant in politics. Yet for Schmitt the political was not an autonomous domain equivalent to the other domains, but rather the existential basis that would determine any other domain should it reach the point of politics (e.g. religion ceases to be merely theological when it makes a clear distinction between the “friend” and the “enemy”). The political is not equal to any other domain, such as the economic (which distinguishes between profitable and not profitable), but instead is the most essential to identity.

                      Schmitt, in perhaps his best-known formulation, bases his conceptual realm of state sovereignty and autonomy upon the distinction between friend and enemy. This distinction is to be determined “existentially”, which is to say that the enemy is whoever is “in a specially intense way, existentially something different and alien, so that in the extreme case conflicts with him are possible.”[37] Such an enemy need not even be based on nationality: so long as the conflict is potentially intense enough to become a violent one between political entities, the actual substance of enmity may be anything.

                      Although there have been divergent interpretations concerning this work, there is broad agreement that “The Concept of the Political” is an attempt to achieve state unity by defining the content of politics as opposition to the “other” (that is to say, an enemy, a stranger. This applies to any person or entity that represents a serious threat or conflict to one’s own interests.) Additionally, the prominence of the state stands as an arbitrary force dominating potentially fractious civil society, whose various antagonisms must not be allowed to affect politics, lest civil war result.

                      Dialogue with Leo Strauss
                      Schmitt’s positive reference for Leo Strauss, and Schmitt’s approval of his work, had been instrumental in winning Strauss the scholarship funding that allowed him to leave Germany.[38] In turn, Strauss’s critique and clarifications of The Concept of the Political led Schmitt to make significant emendations in its second edition. Writing to Schmitt during 1932, Strauss summarized Schmitt’s political theology thus: “[B]ecause man is by nature evil, he therefore needs dominion. But dominion can be established, that is, men can be unified only in a unity against—against other men. Every association of men is necessarily a separation from other men … the political thus understood is not the constitutive principle of the state, of order, but a condition of the state.”[39] Some of the letters between Schmitt and Strauss have been published.

                      Nomos of the Earth
                      The Nomos of the Earth is Schmitt’s most historical and geopolitical work. Published in 1950, it was also one of his final texts. It describes the origin of the Eurocentric global order, which Schmitt dates from the discovery of the New World, discusses its specific character and its contribution to civilization, analyses the reasons for its decline at the end of the 19th century, and concludes with prospects for a new world order. It defends European achievements, not only in creating the first truly global order of international law, but also in limiting war to conflicts among sovereign states, which, in effect, civilized war. In Schmitt’s view, the European sovereign state was the greatest achievement of Occidental rationalism; in becoming the principal agency of secularization, the European state created the modern age.

                      Notable in Schmitt’s discussion of the European epoch of world history is the role played by the New World, which ultimately replaced the Old World as the centre of the Earth and became the arbiter in European and world politics. According to Schmitt, the United States’ internal conflicts between economic presence and political absence, between isolationism and interventionism, are global problems, which today continue to hamper the creation of a new world order. But however critical Schmitt is of American actions at the end of the 19th century and after World War I, he considered the United States to be the only political entity capable of resolving the crisis of global order.

                      Hamlet or Hecuba
                      Published in 1956, Hamlet or Hecuba: The Intrusion of the Time into the Play was Schmitt’s most extended piece of literary criticism. In it Schmitt focuses his attention on Shakespeare’s Hamlet and argues that the significance of the work hinges on its ability to integrate history in the form of the taboo of the queen and the deformation of the figure of the avenger. Schmitt uses this interpretation to develop a theory of myth and politics that serves as a cultural foundation for his concept of political representation. Beyond literary criticism or historical analysis, Schmitt’s book also reveals a comprehensive theory of the relationship between aesthetics and politics that responds to alternative ideas developed by Walter Benjamin and Theodor W. Adorno.

                      Theory of the Partisan
                      Schmitt’s Theory of the Partisan originated in two lectures delivered during 1962,[40] and has been seen as a rethinking of The Concept of the Political.[41] It addressed the transformation of war in the post-European age, analysing a specific and significant phenomenon that ushered in a new theory of war and enmity. It contains an implicit theory of the terrorist, which during the 21st century has resulted in yet another new theory of war and enmity. In the lectures, Schmitt directly tackles the issues surrounding “the problem of the Partisan” figure: the guerrilla or revolutionary who “fights irregularly” (p. 3).[42] Both because of its scope, with extended discussions on historical figures like Napoleon Bonaparte, Vladimir Lenin and Mao Zedong, as well as the events marking the beginning of the 20th century, Schmitt’s text has had a resurgence of popularity. Jacques Derrida, in his Politics of Friendship remarked:

                      Despite certain signs of ironic distrust in the areas of metaphysics and ontology, The Concept of the Political was, as we have seen, a philosophical type of essay to ‘frame’ the topic of a concept unable to constitute itself on philosophical ground. But in Theory of the Partisan, it is in the same areas that the topic of this concept is both radicalized and properly uprooted, where Schmitt wished to regrasp in history the event or node of events that engaged this uprooting radicalisation, and it is precisely there that the philosophical as such intervenes again.[43]

                      Schmitt concludes Theory of the Partisan with the statement: “The theory of the partisan flows into the question of the concept of the political, into the question of the real enemy and of a new nomos of the earth.”[44] …”

                    3. Prarie, I am not a moralist when it comes to politics. I am an American so I participate in Democracy but I also like Plato who had a stern critique of it in the Republic. Every system has some merits and we look to both history but also emergent conditions as we all consider what changes we may wish to recommend.

                      I direct you to “The Crisis of Parliamentary Democracy” another one of Carl Schmitt’s signal works which reads almost like prophecy for 2020

                    4. Prairie, Kurtz said he himself was a partisan and saw nothing wrong with that. He wasn’t referring to Jews or Nazi’s in particular. I quoted from Britannica to emphasize that the word partisan could be good, bad or neutral.

                      ” I am concerned the partisan definition he is choosing to align with is more along the lines of the partisanship of Nancy Pelosi, just on the opposite side of the aisle.”

                      If that is the case I hope Kurtz shows strong partisanship as an opponent to Nancy Pelosi. Doing so makes him a hero in my eyes. There is nothing wrong with two partisans representing two different opinions.

                    5. Allan,
                      “There is nothing wrong with two partisans representing two different opinions.”

                      There is something terribly wrong with two partisans representing two different opinions–it means they are at loggerheads and there will be gridlock and stagnation. To break such gridlock there must ensue a violent power struggle–to the detriment of everyone.

                    6. Prairie, we live in a world that is not as friendly as you would like it to be. Degrees of partisanship develop from the extreme like that seen in the Warsaw Ghetto Should they have gone to their deaths peacefully? WW2, should the US had not been partisan and let the Nazi’s rule the world? Then there is the partisan nature of Kurtz who will push for what he believes.

                      You say ” There is something terribly wrong with two partisans representing two different opinions” There can be but that is life. Is there something intrinsically wrong with people that have more than one opinion?

                    7. Mr. Kurtz,
                      I have been reading about Schmitt, as well as beginning to delve into his works. My gut instinct was accurate–he is quite against classical liberalism.

                      Yet, you are right that “The purpose of political philosophy is understanding and not just propaganda or attribution of moralistic judgments….his work [is] relevant and timely for understanding politics.”

                      As for understanding, yes, he is good for understanding contemporary politics: and we are in a *very* bad place.

                    8. I take this back: “To break such gridlock there must ensue a violent power struggle–to the detriment of everyone.”

                      Their refusal to budge can be over-ridden by more reasonable discussion. Judges can determine whose argument has greater merit. They can be ignored.

                      Partisans, in the general sense, are reminiscent of the north-going Zax and the south-going Zax meeting head on and refusing to budge one iota:

                      https://miro.medium.com/max/700/1*cdXcwohfRwdimqhO6pkzbw.png

            2. Yes he was a member of the NSDAP and he was also a key thinker in 20th century politics. Jewish U of Chicago political science professor and German refugee Leo Strauss maintained a lifelong correspondence with him. The works of both Leo Strauss and Carl Schmitt are the subject of renewed academic interest in political science.

              NS party membership does not immediately discredit a person’s lifetime academic work. You have to look to the content of ideas and take them on their merits or not.
              Otherwise you would have to strip Martin Heidegger out of the philosophy syllabus of every university in the world because he was a NSDAP party member too. Who also had an intimate relationship with another Jewish German refugee you may have heard of Hannah Arendt.

              Then there are the nazis like Werner Von Braun whose work in rocketry not only sent his creations to bomb England, but also was indispensible to NASA’s Saturn rocket programs which put the man on the moon. See physics does not care about party membership either.

              Get over the shock value Prairie and look to the intellectual content

              I have also quoted Mao here. If Mao said it and it was true, well, then it was true. Not just false because he was a mass murderer of the first degree. This is logic. Learn.

              1. Mr. Kurtz,
                “NS party membership does not immediately discredit a person’s lifetime academic work. You have to look to the content of ideas and take them on their merits or not.”

                I agree, though I am cautious.

                I am sorry. I should not have jumped to conclusions.

                I do see the nuance of understanding concepts rather than maligning people or ideas due to associations. I deeply fear that our nation could be losing its collective conception of classical liberalism, civil liberties, and the foundations and function of our constitutional republic (etc). Anything that smacks of fascism or creeping totalitarianism or authoritarianism prompts me to try to reassert the goodness and wisdom of the Founding principles.

                I didn’t pause to really understand what was being pointed out. I am still cautious, but it is better to learn and understand and to try to step back to see the wider picture. This is looking into the abyss without losing the Enlightenment.

                I have read some of Arendt and some of Adorno. I have more to read, but Schmitt seems to advocate unity against rather than unity for. Having the focus be on ‘unity against’ seems hollow and easily manipulated.

              2. “look to the intellectual content”

                I am unhappy with his ‘intellectual content’ so far. He appears to be a collectivist who sees people as only being able to be united against something. He also seems to be against classical liberalism and constitutional republics. I will do more reading, but so far I have grave concerns about his perspectives.

                I do see why you note that he is important for understanding contemporary politics. Reality got much uglier and more worrisome very quickly today… 🙁

  8. GTF-19
    The government has used terror tactics to gin up mass hysteria to the point people are killing themselves and each other over covid, yet they staunchly refuse to address this dangerous issue that has a million times as more potential to destroy The United States forever.
    The Unholy Trinity of Google, Twitter and Facebook have appointed themselves Gods of the Universe and have, through social engineering, created their own legion of socially engineered self absorbed validation junkies of black star caliber and released them into American civilization to infect and kill all good and light that holds together this thriving, functioning Civilization that allows humanity the opportunity and freedom to actualize, evolve and reach it’s potential.
    The Constitution and Law and Order are the vaccines against this deadly disease that is killing the Constitutional Republic and It’s People. Holding Google,Twitter and Facebook accountable will expose them as the enemy of freedom and human rights they really are and stopping their march toward control and enslavement of American lives is what is needed.
    The fact that the government has done nothing so far is indicative of their own aspirations for the American People but that’s no surprise. The Democrats, Rinos, leftists and cowards in government have always been about slavery and once they get a taste of and learn the difference between power Over the People instead of power to represent The People, they’ll take the former in whatever form they can get it.
    And they’ll also do whatever it takes to hold on to it.

  9. The level of totalitarianism that is so palatable to the Left, should make one think it’s not a bad thing to throw in one’s lot with Trump.
    I’ve seen his bluster but no indication that he would go as far as the Democrats.

    1. The Democrats have gone full Nietzschean now. Will to power is everything for them

      Republicans need to ditch the Enlightenment bromides and look into the abyss

      1. Dude, the abyss is in the WH and you like it. He lies to you on average 10 times a day, tries to get political opponents arrested, trashes those who used to work for him if they don’t do exactly as he says, rips off charities, pays off whores, cheats on his wife, ogles his daughter, pays no taxes, and ignores the constitution. He’s a “disaster” and a “disgrace” and you’re pathetic.

        1. joe the ChiCom is pretending to have ethics and morals?!

          That’s some funny sh*t in light of the fact that the Chinese are nothing more than 3rd world pirates with zero ethics or morals.

      2. You can look into the abyss without setting aside Enlightenment ideals. They are NOT bromides.

        Seems like the authoritarian left and the authoritarian right are battling for supremacy in a country founded for liberty.

        Do not go gentle into that good night… it ain’t good.

  10. Peter Greenberger: enemy agent of the PRC

    Maybe we should shut Peter Greenberger down. He is a worthless co2 emitter.

Leave a Reply