The opposite of boycotts
Last month I noted the dispute between Patreon and some dissidents like Jordan Peterson.

Concluded with this counterthought:

= = = = = START REPRINT:

WAIT. HOLD IT. A strongly contrary thought.....

Twitter and Youtube may be demonetizing or banning a few nationalists and heretics, but the BIG and IMPORTANT nationalists are using all social media without any observable limits. AMLO, Salvini, and Bolsonaro have highly active FB and Youtube accounts, carrying lots of important news and views that are perfectly opposed to God-Emperor Soros. So maybe the whole dispute is just a source of talking points.

= = = = = END REPRINT

I don't see any new developments from Peterson et al. The contrary thought still stands. Major WORLD-SCALE populists and nationalists are still unjammed and uncensored, and many smaller ones (including me!) are also unjammed. If the censors wanted to suppress this line of thought, they would hit HARDEST on the biggest and most influential sources of this line of thought. So the suppression of some smaller thinkers is not evidence of total censorship; it's more likely a gutless and mechanistic corporate attempt to stay within the tyrannical rules of EU.

I've been rethinking the whole issue, partly based on this observation and partly on my rejection of "rights" in favor of duties.

For many years I was strict about withholding money from Satan. It's clear that "legal" resistance is totally useless and counterproductive, but monetary resistance sometimes works when it's large enough.

This refusal is inconsistent with the Emersonian and FDRian line of thinking based on duties instead of "rights". Emerson and Marx and Mohammed and FDR all agree on the BASIC POINT of real value economics and Natural Law.

PAY FOR VALUE.

This is a duty under Natural Law. Duty doesn't make exceptions for disagreement with some of the actions or principles of the vendor. If you are using a service you must pay for it.

So I've recently restarted using Patreon to support some artists and thinkers who deserve support; and I've resumed contributions to Archive.org because I use it constantly for OTR. Both Patreon and Archive have said and done Satanic things, but I'm not entitled to break my duty for that reason.

Aside from the abstract question, PAYING FOR VALUE has an extremely concrete and practical result. It's a question of scale. Each dollar makes a real difference to a small artist or dissident. Each dollar is totally inconsequential to the payment agency. Payment strengthens the dissidents. Refusing to pay them because of other actions by the payment agency weakens the dissidents.

The intended targets of our boycotts are huge monopolies that are totally unaffected by our refusal. The pain of our refusal lands on the people we intend to help.

= = = = =

Relevant sidenote: Come to think of it, refusal based on opinions is identical to USA's sanctions. We refuse to trade with Persia because Sheldon Adelson hates Persia. The sanctions harm the innocent people of Persia, and secondarily harm innocent Europeans who freeze to death because Sheldon Adelson hates Persia.

= = = = =

Irrelevant sidenote: Kant's version of the Golden Rule has always made me itchy, but I couldn't scratch the itch. Kant said that we should do what we want everybody to do. The above question of scale scratches the itch. Acting on behalf of everyone only works when everyone is ALREADY DOING what we think they should do. In that case it doesn't matter what we do, because the desired purpose is already achieved. If only a few people are sharing our desired action, our action can harm the people we want to help.

Labels: From rights to duties, Natural law = Sharia law, Natural law = Soviet law, se-lu

  ¶ 12:37 AM