Parler is bringing together mainstream conservatives, anti-Semites and white supremacists as the social media platform attracts millions of Trump supporters
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Since the 2020 U.S. presidential election, Parler has caught on among right-wing politicians and “influencers” – people with large online followings – as a social media platform where they can share and promote ideas without worrying about the company blocking or flagging their posts for being dangerous or misleading. However, the website has become a haven for far-right extremists and conspiracy theorists who are now interacting with the mainstream conservatives flocking to the platform.
.......Users flocked there because of the promise of a site that wouldn’t label false information and wouldn’t ban the creation of extremist communities. But they also moved because Republican politicians and well-known elites signaled that Parler was the new home for conservative speech. These include commentator Mark Levin and Fox host Sean Hannity.
Promoting racism, anti-Semitism and violence
Parler has only two community guidelines: It does not knowingly allow criminal activity, and it does not allow spam or bots on its platform. The lack of guidelines on hate speech has allowed racism and anti-Semitism to flourish on Parler.
..... For example, among other explicit white supremacist content, Parler allows usernames referencing the Atomwaffen Division’s violentlty anti-Semitic slogan, posts spreading the theory that Jews are descended from Satan, and hashtags such as “HitlerWasRight.”
In addition, it is easy to find the the implicit bigotry and violence that eventually caused Facebook to ban movements like QAnon. For example, QAnon’s version of the “blood libel” theory – the centuries-old conspiracy theory the Jewish people murder Christians and use their blood for rituals – has spread widely on the platform. Thousands of posts also use QAnon hashtags and promote the false claim that global elites are literally eating children.
Among the alternative platforms, Parler stands out because white supremacists, QAnon adherents and mainstream conservatives exist in close proximity. This results in comment threads on politicians’ posts that are a melting pot of far-right beliefs, such as a response to Donald Trump Jr.’s unfounded allegations of election crimes that states, “Civil war is the only way to drain the swamp.”
Behind the scenes
Parler’s ownership is still kept largely secret. However, the few pieces of information that have come to light make Parler’s spike in popularity even more concerning.
For example, Dan Bongino, the highly popular right-wing commentator who published a book about the “deep state” conspiracy theory and frequently publishes unverified information , has at least a small ownership stake in the company. CEO John Matze has said that the ownership is composed of himself and “a small group of close friends and employees.”
Notably, conservative billionaire Robert Mercer and his daughter, Rebekah, are investors in the platform . Rebekah Mercer helped co-found it with Matze. The Mercers are well known for their investments in other conservative causes, including Nigel Farage’s Brexit campaign, Breitbart News and Cambridge Analytica. The connection to Cambridge Analytica has, in particular, alarmed experts , who worry that Parler may harvest unnecessary data from unwitting users......
Tags
Who is online
447 visitors
Could this be Trump's 2020 campaign headquarters ?
I wish the gop would all go to Parler, and stay there...
Supposedly so many conservatives are going there because Twitter and Facebook are censoring their content. What kind of content? Anti-semitic and white supremacist content and conspiracy nuttery, evidently. What else could it be?
I observed a lot of rage and hate on Parler. It is hard to imagine people will not see it for that...
One of my followers on Twitter set up an account and was banned after one post that said, "Trump sucks". "Freedom of speech" my ass. It's a right wing echo chamber of hatred, no more no less.
How many turned a blind eye to the evil that is Trump?
It has become acceptable to be openly fascist.
That's largely because most media still refuse to call a fascist by their name. "Anti-semitic and white supremacist content"... That is fascism.
Oh... and... Parler is financed by Rebekah Mercer...
I wonder how much white supremacism she has running her in her family circle.
Nothing new that the upper economic tiers, that harbor 'that bent of authoritarinism', unabashedly use the lower economic tiers to achieve their ends.
It must also be noted that the autocracies of the World hold a great disdain for democracy and this question should be asked. Why are certain Americans, the wealthy and those in the media so willing to aid them? As for the lower economic tier, the rank and file of the movement who believe they have been disenfranchised, this movement will make that status permanent.
Media owners are wealthy. The wealthy own the plebes.
What was the question?
Why do they favor autocracy over democracy? That was not clear enough?
Autocrats always favor the propertied class.
True. Except in America, prior to this 'new conservatism', wealthy Americans always stood by American democracy and shunted foreign influence and interference.
That's not really accurate. The Robber Barons were anything but democratic. They eventually recognized that they would have to share power with the plebes, but that was pragmatic, not philosophic.
I doubt that there's a case, anywhere and anytime in world history, where the rich have voluntarily shared power with the plebes.
So. If that be the case then Supply Side Economics and it's---------offspring Citizens United will cleverly backdoor autocracy, muting democracy and only using democratic norms to achieve it's own ends?
Will add this too. The the 'so called experiment' of uniquely American exceptionalism and democracy will fail?
Yes, to both questions.
Interesting. Would it be outside the norms of simple discussion to surmise---question---or wonder if certain leaders such as Erdogan, Putin, Xi and a few others may be waiting with 'baited breath?
Xi, certainly.
I think you are overgeneralizing. There are wealthy who support liberalism, too, like Bloomberg and most MSM.
"All generalizations are false, including this one."
and
"Every rule has exceptions."
It remains that ever since that first "owner" enclosed some land, called it "his property", and used a big stick to enforce his claim... The wealthy have continued to enclose whatever they want, and to enforce their claims with big sticks.
Bill Gates's fortune has more than doubled since he "retired".
And he is generous with his charities and is donating the bulk of it when he dies. There is no sin in making money. It's what you do with it that counts.
Gates is an interesting case. Since he "retired", he has amassed much, much more than he has given.
He has nevertheless given much, much more than other zillionaires.
What should we conclude?
My take is that all zillionaires are disgusting exploiters, but a few mitigate their evil... slightly...
Generous Giving Or Phony Philanthropy? A Critique Of Well-Meaning 'Winners'
========================================================================
The writer Anand Giridharadas has a dark view of American philanthropy.
He's been writing about people who say they're changing the world for the better — except that despite their best efforts, it's not working.
"Rich people are playing a double game," Giridharadas says. "On one hand, there's no question they're giving away more money than has ever been given away in history. Every young elite graduate wants to change the world, and seeks out employers, and goes to Africa to volunteer. But I also argue that we have one of the more predatory elites in history, despite that philanthropy, despite that desire to change the world."
Giridharadas spent time talking with affluent elites. He argues that Internet entrepreneurs, tech innovators, even wealthy foundation directors tend to fight social problems in a way that doesn't threaten the people at the top.
An Internet entrepreneur comes up with software used by Uber — a great advance for part-time drivers, except most of the profits go to the wealthy. A new app developer helps part-time workers avoid cash shortages instead of fighting for better pay. Foundations spend billions of dollars to help people in ways that really just mitigate an unfair economy; meanwhile, the wealthiest have a larger and larger share.
It's the case he makes in his new book Winners Take All: The Elite Charade of Changing the World .
Interview Highlights
On what bothers him about market-based philanthropic solutions
There's this idea that has taken hold in our time, which is the idea of the win-win. And win-win sounds great, right? A win-win is the idea that essentially, the winners can profit while helping other people. They can do well by doing good. Doing well by doing good has become the mantra of so many elites in our time. What this often ends up meaning in practice is that social change that offers a kickback to the winners is favored, and forms of social change that don't are not.
So let's take some examples. If you take the issue of empowering women — well, in theory, many, many people would be in favor of that. Well, let's get down to the brass tacks of what do we do. Well, if you look at most rich countries, things like maternity leave and universal daycare and various other social policies to actually give women and families the opportunity to play all their roles seem to be what it takes. Well, what's the problem with that? It's kind of expensive for the winners. Frankly, rich people would probably have to pay higher taxes in America to empower women in that way. So what happens? Do rich people ignore that demand of women for empowerment? No, they offer a light facsimile of change. They offer a win-win change. They offer change that doesn't change anything fundamental. "Lean In" circles: let's get women together, let's get them in a circle, let's get them to mentor each other and raise their hands. This is the kind of change the winners can get on board with — change that changes nothing fundamental, changes that keeps what they need, change that doesn't change their world.
On whether his fundamental argument is simply for more government intervention and spending (and higher taxes by extension)
I think there's no question that we have lived on the receiving end of 40 years of dogma that government is bad and the market is good. We have been living amid market fundamentalism without necessarily realizing it. You know, it's easy to denigrate government. Let's just stop and pause and reflect on how well the United States of America functions in the spectrum of human societies out there ... even under this presidency. I am not calling for government to take over and control things. I am calling for government to stop being shamed and discredited and pushed out of the picture.
On the connection he makes between people with good intentions — who are often politically liberal — and President Trump
Giridharadas: A lot of well-meaning liberals — and it's going to, it hurts to hear this — but a lot of well-meaning liberals paved the road for Trump. And they did so in two ways. First of all, by peddling a lot of pseudo-change instead of actually fixing the American opportunity structure, instead of actually repairing the American dream over the last 30-to-40 years — by doing that, they allowed some of the biggest problems in this country to fester for decades and not be solved. And I think it's very plausible that had we actually been solving those problems of trade and education and social mobility, Donald Trump would simply not have had the oxygen that his conflagration required. But they also enabled Trump in a second way, which is: They contributed to the correct intuition, across large parts of this country, that elite Americans have rigged the game for themselves.
I don't think the fact that they donate some of it to charity is a good enough reason to allow people to have billions and billions of dollars.
Some billionaires, like the Mercer family, are funding far right extremists.
And some like Bloomberg support entire university schools so that kids can go to school free. He does this both at Johns Hopkins and at Baruch College. He also helped get Biden re-elected.
I have no issue with people who are self-made and do good with their money.
Would you feel better if some billionaires were funding far-left extremists?
I do think everyone should pay their fair share, but what is fair?
We need a wealth tax. People do not "earn" billions of dollars. Nonetheless, our economic system , even with a 3 percent wealth tax on fortunes over 1 billion, would leave Bloomberg with enough money to fund all the college scholarships he could imagine.
Elizabeth Warren proposed a tax of 3 percent per year on any individual wealth over 1 billion. I think that would be a good start and would fund a lot of needed social programs.
Yes
What is this?
they're out there
They're the ones who have been marching under arms, blowing up churches, lynching opponents, ...
I seem to remember some names... Chaney, Schwerner, and Goodman... terrorists...
Seems to me that such a conglomeration of the dregs of American society would make a good third party that Trump can lead for 2024. Honest, decent, Republicans with integrity would remain as the Republican party while Mitch McConnell, Pompous Pompeo, Lindsey Graham, Tucker Carlson as Communications Director and the rest of their loyal bunch would fit into Trump's new "Filth of the Earth" party.
Roy Moore for "Child Promotion Agency."
Good idea... except that the Trumpists vastly outnumber your "honest, decent, Republicans with integrity".
Well, at least it would split the opposition.
Yes. That may already be ongoing...
Why? Are they ashamed of the Frankenstein they've created?
I've been there and there is not much going on, like many other new platforms. People tend to settle into a place and not want to move. And while they got a lot of sign-ups, they are not doing anything. I see the names I know there, but they are not posting and still post on FB or Twitter.
There is one site that is all Donald all the time but they forbid hate speech.
Is that compatible?
IDK... I don't spend any time there. I just checked out the rules.
Ouf!