Post: #251

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/07/techn...mazon.html

Quote:Amazon has more revenue than Facebook, Google and Twitter put together, but it has largely escaped sustained examination. That is beginning to change, and one significant reason is Ms. Khan.

In early 2017, when she was an unknown law student, Ms. Khan published “Amazon’s Antitrust Paradox” in the Yale Law Journal. Her argument went against a consensus in antitrust circles that dates back to the 1970s — the moment when regulation was redefined to focus on consumer welfare, which is to say price. Since Amazon is renowned for its cut-rate deals, it would seem safe from federal intervention.

Ms. Khan disagreed. Over 93 heavily footnoted pages, she presented the case that the company should not get a pass on anticompetitive behavior just because it makes customers happy. Once-robust monopoly laws have been marginalized, Ms. Khan wrote, and consequently Amazon is amassing structural power that lets it exert increasing control over many parts of the economy.

Amazon has so much data on so many customers, it is so willing to forgo profits, it is so aggressive and has so many advantages from its shipping and warehouse infrastructure that it exerts an influence much broader than its market share. It resembles the all-powerful railroads of the Progressive Era, Ms. Khan wrote: “The thousands of retailers and independent businesses that must ride Amazon’s rails to reach market are increasingly dependent on their biggest competitor.”

The paper got 146,255 hits, a runaway best-seller in the world of legal treatises. That popularity has rocked the antitrust establishment, and is making an unlikely celebrity of Ms. Khan in the corridors of Washington.

(...)

The issue Ms. Khan’s article really brought to the fore is this: Do we trust Amazon, or any large company, to create our future? In think tanks and universities, the battle has been joined.

(...)

Big Tech’s great strength is that it is everywhere. Hardly anyone can live without it. But that omnipresence can be a weakness too. Just ask Facebook. It was the only global social media network, an enviable position — until it wasn’t. Ideas for regulating Facebook that were once unimaginable are now on the table.

Ms. Khan was not the first to criticize Amazon, and she said the company was not really her target anyway. “Amazon is not the problem — the state of the law is the problem, and Amazon depicts that in an elegant way,” she said.

From Amazon’s point of view, however, it is a problem indeed that Ms. Khan concludes in the Yale paper that regulating parts of the company like a utility “could make sense.” She also said it “could make sense” to treat Amazon’s e-commerce operation like a bridge, highway, port, power grid or telephone network — all of which are required to allow access to their infrastructure on a nondiscriminatory basis.

(...)

“This is a moment in time that invites a movement,” said Ms. Khan. “It’s bigger than antitrust, bigger than Big Tech. It’s about whether the laws serve democratic ends.”

As you can see, even though she's a married WNB London-born Pakistani immigrant, it is quite easy to find common ground here.

Getting in touch with her to explore possibilities requires a relatively small risk and potentially huge rewards.

Post: #252

(09-11-2018 09:30 PM)Disco_Volante Wrote:  I daresay this forum is their real target. 'Game' tied together a lot of ideas from the forum about governments using feminism to crush male resistance to their power. Its very eye opening to normal men who had never seen those ideas before. Had it been another 'bang latvia' or whatever they would've let it slide IMO.

I think this is true. They are targeting us, and Roosh is the figurehead. It's his forum, and he's clearly a thought leader here, but this group of men has taken on a life of its own, and the ideas that float around here are what people think of when they attack Roosh. This is why I think It's important for us to support him. He's the representative and scapegoat for a large number of men who think the way we do.

Post: #253

Congratulations, Roosh, on your new book!

After being out of the country for a few weeks, I finally ordered "Game" in eBook. Once Roosh find a store that will carry his paperback, I will order it in a heartbeat.

Some of the MSM/Left news outlet that wrote articles about Roosh's new "Game" book - HuffPost, Gizmodo, ThinkProgress, The Daily Beast - never learn. The fools are giving him more exposure and most importantly, free marketing that will make the curious readers buy his book.

Post: #254

(09-11-2018 06:00 PM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  In doing some research on the topic of Amazon banning books, I came across a revelant article from August 10, 2018 on Yahoo Finance.

Summary: Amazon removed the e-books of six self-published novelists who say they did nothing wrong. The authors complained their books were removed without warning and they were given no clear explanation. One of them is a big-selling writer, J.A. Cipriano.

Sound familiar?

My thoughts: The big publishing houses in New York might be pulling the strings at Amazon regarding the removal of these books and Roosh's books.

Big Publishing might be telling Amazon not to stock indie books if they want the big titles from major companies. Like the record industry, the publishing industry has taken big financial blows in the digital era, and the bigwigs try to elbow out anything "indie" or "self-published" which doesn't earn them profit.

I recall reading something similar about grocery store chains and record stores decades ago. If the stores stocked anything other than major brands, the major brands would withhold their big-selling products, which hurt the retailers' bottom lines.

This is just conjecture, but it's worth considering. If this turns out to be the case, self-published authors should ban together and sue Amazon.

One harsh but true point being: you're not really a self-published author if you're publishing via Amazon's Kindle Unlimited. It is actually no different than the slave relationship published authors have with the Big Six.

Instead, you have admitted you are willing to go entirely by what Amazon deems to be an acceptable book. I mean, for fucks' sake, from the article itself:

Quote:Because Amazon’s terms of service state KDP authors can’t sue the company, Earle may pursue arbitration against Amazon in the months ahead if his attorney can’t resolve the issue with Amazon.

If you were an employee, would you really be that stupid to sign up to an employer who gave you that term? And let's remember employment is the modern form of slavery when you remember an employee has to remain employable (as opposed to employed).

Better analogy: if you were a tenant, would you sign a lease agreement that said you couldn't sue the landlord under any circumstances?

If not, then exactly how smart are you as a so-called "independent businessman" to sign up to a term like that?

Basically, these so-called self-published authors are not self-published. Amazon publishes for them and worse still controls the distribution chain to their customers. They are no different than the suckers they think they are so different from who kiss the asses of big publishers just to get a guernsey and a pointless place on a bookshelf. Worse: at least the suckers who get ditched by the Big Six don't have their livelihoods tied up by it.

If Amazon is going to continue going this way - and I admit I'm surprised they torched Roosh, these fuckers are still happily selling copies of Mein Kampf and De Sade's work - then it's going to become clearer and clearer that the only way to self-publish is going to be out of your own website, out of your own backyard, and find other sources of advertising or rely on word of mouth to get books sold.

This is what I have been saying about Amazon for years: its business model is flawed, it is an internet middleman, basically the electronic version of Sears ... which also went bust when online models came along. Eventually, someone's going to figure out how to use blockchain and distributed servers, and Amazon will go bust just as fast - because people will be able to talk direct to the producers, not to middlemen. John T Reed's sales of books went up when he quit Amazon, although he remained exclusively in hard copy books and never went to e-versions.

God save us from people who mean well. -storm

Post: #255

Amazon, Twitter, Facebook, etc are all private enterprises but they can't ban people right and left. They have TERMS OF SERVICE. Using the "hate speech" broadly is a shitty excuse to ban people.

I wonder if all those companies would have the same market share if they were clear about their leftist ideology.

I think Roosh should sue Amazon, Kobo (and whatever else). Get some extra publicity and get a good settlement. Maybe Hank Moody could shed some light?

Post: #256

My native Western European country regularly prosecutes people for the sole reason that they pissed off the establishment. These people get put in jail and lose everything they have, or get "accidents", despite being completely innocent.

The system can do whatever it wants because there no consequences. They are untouchable.

Are we as a forum in a position to deliver negative consequences to Amazon to the extent it will hurt them?

If not, all discussion is useless.

They obviously do not respond to common decency. Why would we waste our time talking about their moral corruption if their amorality is a given? Bitching about it here will not change their minds.

Give them a reason to stop. Calling on their heart or human decency will not work.

Post: #257

(09-11-2018 10:38 PM)Paracelsus Wrote:  

(09-11-2018 06:00 PM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  In doing some research on the topic of Amazon banning books, I came across a revelant article from August 10, 2018 on Yahoo Finance.

Summary: Amazon removed the e-books of six self-published novelists who say they did nothing wrong. The authors complained their books were removed without warning and they were given no clear explanation. One of them is a big-selling writer, J.A. Cipriano.

Sound familiar?

My thoughts: The big publishing houses in New York might be pulling the strings at Amazon regarding the removal of these books and Roosh's books.

Big Publishing might be telling Amazon not to stock indie books if they want the big titles from major companies. Like the record industry, the publishing industry has taken big financial blows in the digital era, and the bigwigs try to elbow out anything "indie" or "self-published" which doesn't earn them profit.

I recall reading something similar about grocery store chains and record stores decades ago. If the stores stocked anything other than major brands, the major brands would withhold their big-selling products, which hurt the retailers' bottom lines.

This is just conjecture, but it's worth considering. If this turns out to be the case, self-published authors should ban together and sue Amazon.

One harsh but true point being: you're not really a self-published author if you're publishing via Amazon's Kindle Unlimited. It is actually no different than the slave relationship published authors have with the Big Six.

Instead, you have admitted you are willing to go entirely by what Amazon deems to be an acceptable book. I mean, for fucks' sake, from the article itself:

Quote:Because Amazon’s terms of service state KDP authors can’t sue the company, Earle may pursue arbitration against Amazon in the months ahead if his attorney can’t resolve the issue with Amazon.

If you were an employee, would you really be that stupid to sign up to an employer who gave you that term? And let's remember employment is the modern form of slavery when you remember an employee has to remain employable (as opposed to employed).

Better analogy: if you were a tenant, would you sign a lease agreement that said you couldn't sue the landlord under any circumstances?

If not, then exactly how smart are you as a so-called "independent businessman" to sign up to a term like that?

Basically, these so-called self-published authors are not self-published. Amazon publishes for them and worse still controls the distribution chain to their customers. They are no different than the suckers they think they are so different from who kiss the asses of big publishers just to get a guernsey and a pointless place on a bookshelf. Worse: at least the suckers who get ditched by the Big Six don't have their livelihoods tied up by it.

If Amazon is going to continue going this way - and I admit I'm surprised they torched Roosh, these fuckers are still happily selling copies of Mein Kampf and De Sade's work - then it's going to become clearer and clearer that the only way to self-publish is going to be out of your own website, out of your own backyard, and find other sources of advertising or rely on word of mouth to get books sold.

This is what I have been saying about Amazon for years: its business model is flawed, it is an internet middleman, basically the electronic version of Sears ... which also went bust when online models came along. Eventually, someone's going to figure out how to use blockchain and distributed servers, and Amazon will go bust just as fast - because people will be able to talk direct to the producers, not to middlemen. John T Reed's sales of books went up when he quit Amazon, although he remained exclusively in hard copy books and never went to e-versions.

Loved your analogy of Amazon to Sears. The storied company was once the catalog king of retail. I interned at the corporate headquarters for a brief time and saw what was happening behind the scenes. "Fast Eddie" aka Eddie Lampert, the CEO of Sears, has been driving the once storied company into the ground at a rapid clip by dividing it, parceling it & shuttering / closing much of it. But he does stand to profit even if the company tanks. Plus he will still own a handsome real estate portfolio. He is a hedge fund ((())) billionaire from NY / Connecticut that now lives in a gigantic South Florida megamansion nowhere near the firm's Illinois headquarters. Thousands of corporate & retail employees (throughout USA & Canada) have been losing their jobs over the years. And don't forget that Sears merged with K-Mart some years back as well.

Inside The Strange Odyssey Of Hedge-Fund King Eddie Lampert

Eddie Lampert Just Can't Stop Picking At Sears' Carcass

Sears' CEO blames the media for company's decline — but his obsession with Wall Street set it up for failure

The 5 Ways Ed Lampert Destroyed Sears

Yes, Sears is likely to collapse, but its biggest stakeholder will be just fine

Post: #258

(09-11-2018 11:39 PM)jordypip23 Wrote:  

(09-11-2018 10:38 PM)Paracelsus Wrote:  

(09-11-2018 06:00 PM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  In doing some research on the topic of Amazon banning books, I came across a revelant article from August 10, 2018 on Yahoo Finance.

Summary: Amazon removed the e-books of six self-published novelists who say they did nothing wrong. The authors complained their books were removed without warning and they were given no clear explanation. One of them is a big-selling writer, J.A. Cipriano.

Sound familiar?

My thoughts: The big publishing houses in New York might be pulling the strings at Amazon regarding the removal of these books and Roosh's books.

Big Publishing might be telling Amazon not to stock indie books if they want the big titles from major companies. Like the record industry, the publishing industry has taken big financial blows in the digital era, and the bigwigs try to elbow out anything "indie" or "self-published" which doesn't earn them profit.

I recall reading something similar about grocery store chains and record stores decades ago. If the stores stocked anything other than major brands, the major brands would withhold their big-selling products, which hurt the retailers' bottom lines.

This is just conjecture, but it's worth considering. If this turns out to be the case, self-published authors should ban together and sue Amazon.

One harsh but true point being: you're not really a self-published author if you're publishing via Amazon's Kindle Unlimited. It is actually no different than the slave relationship published authors have with the Big Six.

Instead, you have admitted you are willing to go entirely by what Amazon deems to be an acceptable book. I mean, for fucks' sake, from the article itself:

Quote:Because Amazon’s terms of service state KDP authors can’t sue the company, Earle may pursue arbitration against Amazon in the months ahead if his attorney can’t resolve the issue with Amazon.

If you were an employee, would you really be that stupid to sign up to an employer who gave you that term? And let's remember employment is the modern form of slavery when you remember an employee has to remain employable (as opposed to employed).

Better analogy: if you were a tenant, would you sign a lease agreement that said you couldn't sue the landlord under any circumstances?

If not, then exactly how smart are you as a so-called "independent businessman" to sign up to a term like that?

Basically, these so-called self-published authors are not self-published. Amazon publishes for them and worse still controls the distribution chain to their customers. They are no different than the suckers they think they are so different from who kiss the asses of big publishers just to get a guernsey and a pointless place on a bookshelf. Worse: at least the suckers who get ditched by the Big Six don't have their livelihoods tied up by it.

If Amazon is going to continue going this way - and I admit I'm surprised they torched Roosh, these fuckers are still happily selling copies of Mein Kampf and De Sade's work - then it's going to become clearer and clearer that the only way to self-publish is going to be out of your own website, out of your own backyard, and find other sources of advertising or rely on word of mouth to get books sold.

This is what I have been saying about Amazon for years: its business model is flawed, it is an internet middleman, basically the electronic version of Sears ... which also went bust when online models came along. Eventually, someone's going to figure out how to use blockchain and distributed servers, and Amazon will go bust just as fast - because people will be able to talk direct to the producers, not to middlemen. John T Reed's sales of books went up when he quit Amazon, although he remained exclusively in hard copy books and never went to e-versions.

Loved your analogy of Amazon to Sears. The storied company was once the catalog king of retail. I interned at the corporate headquarters for a brief time and saw what was happening behind the scenes. "Fast Eddie" aka Eddie Lampert, the CEO of Sears, has been driving the once storied company into the ground at a rapid clip by dividing it, parceling it & shuttering / closing much of it. But he does stand to profit even if the company tanks. Plus he will still own a handsome real estate portfolio. He is a hedge fund ((())) billionaire from NY / Connecticut that now lives in a gigantic South Florida megamansion nowhere near the firm's Illinois headquarters. Thousands of corporate & retail employees (throughout USA & Canada) have been losing their jobs over the years. And don't forget that Sears merged with K-Mart some years back as well.

Inside The Strange Odyssey Of Hedge-Fund King Eddie Lampert

Eddie Lampert Just Can't Stop Picking At Sears' Carcass

Sears' CEO blames the media for company's decline — but his obsession with Wall Street set it up for failure

The 5 Ways Ed Lampert Destroyed Sears

Yes, Sears is likely to collapse, but its biggest stakeholder will be just fine

I managed at a Sears briefly and even at the retail level you could see Lampert's work. There would be 1 cashier in the entire giant store, so (for example) people would have to send customers with all their bags and shit up the escalator to then find which corner there was a cashier in. As you can imagine, many people just dumped there shit on the ground and gave up at that point. I thought it was odd to run a store, where the objective is to take people's money, and not have the people that take the money working/anywhere to be found. Obviously I stayed under a month.

Post: #259

(09-12-2018 12:09 AM)godfather dust Wrote:  

(09-11-2018 11:39 PM)jordypip23 Wrote:  

(09-11-2018 10:38 PM)Paracelsus Wrote:  

(09-11-2018 06:00 PM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  In doing some research on the topic of Amazon banning books, I came across a revelant article from August 10, 2018 on Yahoo Finance.

Summary: Amazon removed the e-books of six self-published novelists who say they did nothing wrong. The authors complained their books were removed without warning and they were given no clear explanation. One of them is a big-selling writer, J.A. Cipriano.

Sound familiar?

My thoughts: The big publishing houses in New York might be pulling the strings at Amazon regarding the removal of these books and Roosh's books.

Big Publishing might be telling Amazon not to stock indie books if they want the big titles from major companies. Like the record industry, the publishing industry has taken big financial blows in the digital era, and the bigwigs try to elbow out anything "indie" or "self-published" which doesn't earn them profit.

I recall reading something similar about grocery store chains and record stores decades ago. If the stores stocked anything other than major brands, the major brands would withhold their big-selling products, which hurt the retailers' bottom lines.

This is just conjecture, but it's worth considering. If this turns out to be the case, self-published authors should ban together and sue Amazon.

One harsh but true point being: you're not really a self-published author if you're publishing via Amazon's Kindle Unlimited. It is actually no different than the slave relationship published authors have with the Big Six.

Instead, you have admitted you are willing to go entirely by what Amazon deems to be an acceptable book. I mean, for fucks' sake, from the article itself:

Quote:Because Amazon’s terms of service state KDP authors can’t sue the company, Earle may pursue arbitration against Amazon in the months ahead if his attorney can’t resolve the issue with Amazon.

If you were an employee, would you really be that stupid to sign up to an employer who gave you that term? And let's remember employment is the modern form of slavery when you remember an employee has to remain employable (as opposed to employed).

Better analogy: if you were a tenant, would you sign a lease agreement that said you couldn't sue the landlord under any circumstances?

If not, then exactly how smart are you as a so-called "independent businessman" to sign up to a term like that?

Basically, these so-called self-published authors are not self-published. Amazon publishes for them and worse still controls the distribution chain to their customers. They are no different than the suckers they think they are so different from who kiss the asses of big publishers just to get a guernsey and a pointless place on a bookshelf. Worse: at least the suckers who get ditched by the Big Six don't have their livelihoods tied up by it.

If Amazon is going to continue going this way - and I admit I'm surprised they torched Roosh, these fuckers are still happily selling copies of Mein Kampf and De Sade's work - then it's going to become clearer and clearer that the only way to self-publish is going to be out of your own website, out of your own backyard, and find other sources of advertising or rely on word of mouth to get books sold.

This is what I have been saying about Amazon for years: its business model is flawed, it is an internet middleman, basically the electronic version of Sears ... which also went bust when online models came along. Eventually, someone's going to figure out how to use blockchain and distributed servers, and Amazon will go bust just as fast - because people will be able to talk direct to the producers, not to middlemen. John T Reed's sales of books went up when he quit Amazon, although he remained exclusively in hard copy books and never went to e-versions.

Loved your analogy of Amazon to Sears. The storied company was once the catalog king of retail. I interned at the corporate headquarters for a brief time and saw what was happening behind the scenes. "Fast Eddie" aka Eddie Lampert, the CEO of Sears, has been driving the once storied company into the ground at a rapid clip by dividing it, parceling it & shuttering / closing much of it. But he does stand to profit even if the company tanks. Plus he will still own a handsome real estate portfolio. He is a hedge fund ((())) billionaire from NY / Connecticut that now lives in a gigantic South Florida megamansion nowhere near the firm's Illinois headquarters. Thousands of corporate & retail employees (throughout USA & Canada) have been losing their jobs over the years. And don't forget that Sears merged with K-Mart some years back as well.

Inside The Strange Odyssey Of Hedge-Fund King Eddie Lampert

Eddie Lampert Just Can't Stop Picking At Sears' Carcass

Sears' CEO blames the media for company's decline — but his obsession with Wall Street set it up for failure

The 5 Ways Ed Lampert Destroyed Sears

Yes, Sears is likely to collapse, but its biggest stakeholder will be just fine

I managed at a Sears briefly and even at the retail level you could see Lampert's work. There would be 1 cashier in the entire giant store, so (for example) people would have to send customers with all their bags and shit up the escalator to then find which corner there was a cashier in. As you can imagine, many people just dumped there shit on the ground and gave up at that point. I thought it was odd to run a store, where the objective is to take people's money, and not have the people that take the money working/anywhere to be found. Obviously I stayed under a month.

I used to take my old vehicle to a Sears Auto center to get tires. The guys working there (cool as they were) just could not run an efficient operation man. Things were slow as shit & you had to wait FOREVER for anything to get done. Needless to say, that entire store has been shuttered as have so many other Sears locations.

I guess the moral of the story is that Amazon may be the king of online retail today, but their party may not last forever. And the idea wars will continue on strong.

Post: #260

(09-11-2018 04:34 PM)BortimusPrime Wrote:  It gets trickier when you factor in search algorithms, since the algorithms are proprietary and you can literally put someone on the very end of the results with one line of code:

if(author == "Roosh") then search_weight := 0;

Best case would be to require a default uncurated search option in whatever media platform, but policing it would be next to impossible and the tech companies can just do the old "it wuz a mistake sry lol" shuffle they've been doing on youtube every time they get confronted over bullshit channel shutdowns.

I think humans have a fundamental human right to not have their tools (computers) knowingly report false information to them. Imagine going into a library and doing a search of the card catalog, but a feminist librarian removed all of the entries for books featuring Warren Farrell or Christina Hoff Summers. Whether that's an actual physical card catalog, or a database, this would be a big violation of trust and affects the entire populace using that service.

In the case of these tech giants, we can and should require that they publicly release their algorithms for ranking content (I'm sure this would provoke much weeping and gnashing of teeth. All the more reason to do it), and provide third-party auditors access to their data sets in order to validate that the algorithms are behaving as claimed. This could be done in an automated way by sophisticated enough auditors. We heard Jack Dorsey and Mark Zuckerberg talk about transparency and accountability, but this is the only real way to actually be transparent and actually be accountable.

Moreover, we should require that every search tool over a certain scope/size support some common search features that would give people power to search without the tech companies manipulating content. I know for things like Facebook & Twitter, a simple feed that displays followed individuals & groups activity in a chronological order is the most requested feature. However a simple chronological feed is devoid of monetization and manipulation potential, so it won't happen.

Edit: Joe Rogan interview when? I'd like to see Roosh on there as the first victim of the modern book burners.

Post: #261

(09-11-2018 06:00 PM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  In doing some research on the topic of Amazon banning books, I came across a revelant article from August 10, 2018 on Yahoo Finance.

Summary: Amazon removed the e-books of six self-published novelists who say they did nothing wrong. The authors complained their books were removed without warning and they were given no clear explanation. One of them is a big-selling writer, J.A. Cipriano.

Those dickheads were banned because they were cheating KU. They were stuffing their books to double their length (and double their KU payout). They were possibly also doing some black hat marketing shit. They deserved what they got and it's not the same thing at all.

I am unlikely to be at risk, but shit like this is why I have a pen name.

Post: #262

^^^^^^^

Regarding the posts that are comparing Sears to Amazon, I don't personally see Amazon collapsing like Sears.

For decades, Sears was the model of inefficiency and was considered obsolete and declasse. Amazon, by contrast, makes it easy to buy their products and for the most part, stays up to date technology-wise.

The only think, I think, that will bring Amazon to its knees is some sort of antitrust legislation -- or something related to it. Since Trump despises Bezos, maybe if he gets elected to a second term he'll spearhead a movement to take down Amazon.

After I wrote my above post about how publishers probably lean on Amazon not to stock indie titles, I got to wondering if those same publishers threaten not to run ads in the Post if they don't get their way at Amazon. If something like this is going on and someone blows the whistle, then that would spell trouble for Amazon.

Post: #263

(09-11-2018 12:48 PM)speculator Wrote:  To all the free marketeers and libertarian impotents:

I wish your local utility companies will deny you water, heat, electricity, natural gas, and waste removal services cause why not. It's free market.

In all seriousness, gtfo with all that "free market" bullshit and constitutional masturbation. We are in a state of war and the opponent is playing dirty. People like you are a bigger problem than rabid feminazis and their handlers cause your indifference enables them to grab the "free market" by the pussy and redistribute wealth and access to it as they wish.

I don't share the optimism on this board. We are in the early stages of totalitarianism and there is nothing to cheer about. Brace yourselves for a very dark period. Winter is coming.

Schumpeter was right. Monopolist capitalism is the new form of socialism.

Post: #264

They didn’t ban the books for content, they banned them because some huffpo faggots cried loud enough and long enough to get it done.

It’s clearly targeted at Roosh and not the actual books.

Post: #265

WOW, link on Drudge to Infowars story on this...

Post: #266

(09-12-2018 04:44 AM)RVF400 Wrote:  WOW, link on Drudge to Infowars story on this...

Yep.

We need to make a list of "controversial" books that Amazon chose to continue selling.

Mein Kampf
Prairie Fire: The Politics of Revolutionary Anti-Imperialism (Weather Underground manifesto)
Unabomber Manifesto

Post: #267

Amazon is really rubbing this in our faces. I went to the Amazon home page, and this is the first image I see:



A picture of Roosh holding a baby — drinking a bottle of white supremacist milk, naturally — with the slogan "Turn down the music."

Whatever, Amazon. You may think you've turned down the music, but believe me, this party is only just getting started!

Post: #268

Im not up with selling books via Amazon etc, how much will this affect affect sales?

The way I see it, free advertising and people love drama. As long as Roosh still has viable platforms for sales.

Post: #269

It should not escape notice that Roosh has copped far more stick from the powers that be than other more widely circulated Right wing speakers.

You can see what they are unconcerned with by what they allow to propagate and what they fear by what they rabidly suppress.

Unless my history is shoddy, Roosh has been on a special hitlist ever since the ROK meetups were announced. Other so-called champions of the West have higher view counts than Roosh and yet suffer little to no meddling from these tyrants. They are materially better off, and in some instances get book deals, prime time interview slots on MSM networks and are able to secure venues for public events without meeting resistance from anyone but disorganized rabble.

This has nothing to do with his book, IMO. The powers that be are not afraid of anything contained in Roosh's latest release.

I believe that what they are terrified of is that he will regain enough momentum to instigate large scale meetups of dissatisfied men, and the security apparatus of the deep state will be overwhelmed with a long term security nightmare of biblical proportions that will make the muslim menace seem quaint by comparison.

This concerted and coordinated effort by a large number of separate corporations acting in unison has nothing to do with a book.

Roosh is being shut down for the same reason Twitter nuked every single Proudboys account at the same time.

They are terrified of nothing except the snowball effect of a modern shitlord gathering turning into an unstoppable Right wing horde.

If the disaffected men of the West ever gathered in large enough numbers to form cold-civil-war economic, social and martial support groups then the power of the elites would be crippled, perhaps irreparably.

THAT is why Roosh was banned from the UK when so many others were not, THAT is why the Five Eyes members came down on him like a ton of bricks during the ROK meetups era, and THAT is why they are now stomping him flat again before any followup attempt could be made.

It has absofuckinglutely nothing to do with a bloody book.

Post: #270

Quote:Executive Contacts

Primary Contact
Dave Clark
SVP, Worldwide Operations and Customer Service at Amazon
410 Terry Avenue North
Seattle, WA 98109-5210
[email protected]

Secondary Contact
Mike Roth
Vice President, North America Operations at Amazon.com
410 Terry Avenue North
Seattle, WA 98109-5210
[email protected]

Chief Executive
Jeff Bezos
President
410 Terry Avenue North
Seattle, WA 98109-5210
[email protected]

Amit Aggarwal, CEO of Amazon India
[email protected]

Amazon Official Emails:

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

Since many are still on the complaining bandwagon, I thought that avoiding customer service would be more effective. Here are some addresses I found that you can write a polite and eloquent email to. A Russian spam bot would come in handy at this point for this strategy.

Post: #271

(09-12-2018 06:43 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  It should not escape notice that Roosh has copped far more stick from the powers that be than other more widely circulated Right wing speakers.

You can see what they are unconcerned with by what they allow to propagate and what they fear by what they rabidly suppress.

Unless my history is shoddy, Roosh has been on a special hitlist ever since the ROK meetups were announced. Other so-called champions of the West have higher view counts than Roosh and yet suffer little to no meddling from these tyrants. They are materially better off, and in some instances get book deals, prime time interview slots on MSM networks and are able to secure venues for public events without meeting resistance from anyone but disorganized rabble.

This has nothing to do with his book, IMO. The powers that be are not afraid of anything contained in Roosh's latest release.

I believe that what they are terrified of is that he will regain enough momentum to instigate large scale meetups of dissatisfied men, and the security apparatus of the deep state will be overwhelmed with a long term security nightmare of biblical proportions that will make the muslim menace seem quaint by comparison.

This concerted and coordinated effort by a large number of separate corporations acting in unison has nothing to do with a book.

Roosh is being shut down for the same reason Twitter nuked every single Proudboys account at the same time.

They are terrified of nothing except the snowball effect of a modern shitlord gathering turning into an unstoppable Right wing horde.

If the disaffected men of the West ever gathered in large enough numbers to form cold-civil-war economic, social and martial support groups then the power of the elites would be crippled, perhaps irreparably.

THAT is why Roosh was banned from the UK when so many others were not, THAT is why the Five Eyes members came down on him like a ton of bricks during the ROK meetups era, and THAT is why they are now stomping him flat again before any followup attempt could be made.

It has absofuckinglutely nothing to do with a bloody book.

This may be true. I will say this, regardless if this is the thinking of the elites in targeting Roosh or the Proudboys, their risk is real.

I've posted several times in the past that my hope for a non-dystopic future is that a majority of men will come to understand the basic principles of the red pill. Women are attracted to masculinity and dominance. Alpha fucks / Beta bucks. Add in a male contraceptive, and a near universal attitude among men that they will only impregnate a virgin bride who was raise to believe in marriage for life. These ideas can spread until they become widely accept by most men. After all, they are true!

If this happens, the current globalist, SJW, cultural Marxist project will be wrecked.

Post: #272

Do we have any insight as to why or how only some of the books were banned (i.e. how come all of the books did not get banned?)?

It seems that the people doing this would have targeted all of the works, unless they are completely incompetent (which is very possible).

Post: #273

Stefan Molynuex talked about it at 32:30:

Post: #274

Gizmodo covered the books being banned. Lots of comments.

The headline states: "Amazon Takes Down Nine Books Self-Published on Kindle by Virulent Sexist 'Roosh.'" What kind of a headline is that?

Do these writers think that being called "sexist" gives corporations a reason to ban artists and writers? If this is the case, then a lot of things should be banned, from Eminem and the Rolling Stones to Charles Bukowski and H.L. Mencken to Sean Connery (who once advocated slapping your girl around). Is this where we're headed?

In the comments, people are claiming the books advocate rape. I haven't read them all. Maybe some of you have. The ones I read were basically dating advice.

One of the commenters mentioned that Roosh's article on rape -- which seems to have triggered all this -- is a Jonathan Swift-styled "Modest Proposal"-type piece. And that's something few people seem to have gotten. If this is the best they can do in claiming Roosh is a "rape apologist," it's not really relevant to the removal of his books, because it's not from a book.

Correct me if I'm wrong here. Whatever the case, that headline is ridiculous and will not age well when the sex-phobic Millennial phase we're in now passes.

If history is any example, the artists who pissed off the most people and the most corporations are the ones who are looked back on as the most significant. The problem is dealing with this stuff while it's happening. Looking back in hindsight is always easy.

I'm sure the bluestocking men at Gizmodo all LOVE punk rock now that it's safe and embalmed as part of history. But I'm guessing they would have gotten the vapors had they been around in '77 for things like this:

Post: #275

I think the underlying problem here is defamation of character. I have looked at some of the headlines in the media and they all start out with something like "antisemite" or "rape advocate". Once they have defamed your character, it is easy for them to contact a company like Amazon and say "are you supporting this"? Amazon is just a business and does the easiest thing. The main problem of a lawsuit is it is almost impossible for a "public person" to sue, but I don't know if Roosh qualifies yet under this heading. The left are chronic defamers and liars. Look at what they are doing to Trump. Trump has been talking about changing the libel laws. On a positive note, they are admitting we have real power and they are concerned.