The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of this site. This site does not give financial, investment or medical advice.
In my earlier piece about Tucker Carlson’s coming to Russia, I mentioned (and in my accompanying video detailed) that Newsweek was censoring my comments for review. Today I received two e-mails from Newsweek saying that my comments were “Rejected.” I would like to reproduce these for your own view, and show you a little of what the thread is presently like.
Why am I doing this? Because I wonder if we have simply caved in to such nanny monitoring. One of the great freedoms enjoyed by the press in the United States is that Congress cannot make any law prohibiting the freedom of the press, especially in its power to address the government with grievances.
What is amazing is how much Newsweeks Comment Nanny doesn’t seem to want its readers to know. Here is the first comment that was removed (no edits):
Your comment on “Tucker Carlson being spotted in Moscow sparks frenzied speculation” violates the community guidelines and has been rejected
Seraphim HanischWed 07 Feb 2024 05:47:58 AM
There is propaganda active in your views, because you are saying that Russia is communist. It simply isn’t. Why do you insist on saying things that are false? Go to Wikipedia (far from a conservative place) and check it out. Go ask other people who live in Russia or Americans who have visited and spent time here. If you insist on something that is not true, it is kind of harmful, I think. To you, mostly because it prevents you from learning. There was a saying someone said to me once, “my mind is made up; don’t confuse me with the facts.” I try to always follow the implied wisdom here “don’t be so sure of yourself.” You have a good grasp of some ideological principles, sure. But I will say it again, your writing reflects a repeat of what you have been told and not personal experience. Life offers us both, and we have to use things we learn, sure, but if personal experience says that is wrong, then it needs to go. The structure of the government of the Russian Federation is presently a “Presidential Republic” – Wikipedia slanders a bit, saying this: Federal semi-presidential republic under an authoritarian dictatorship.” I think this wording is clumsy and “westernized”. I would say “Federal Semi-presidential republic”, but I would also point out that a presidential republic is more like a monarchy where there is a parliament involved, but the king has first and final say on many matters. Sometimes that is a dangerous thing, sometimes it is okay. It depends on the person.
And the next, which I wrote right after this first one was placed on “waiting for review”, thinking I might try to reach the person with whom I was communicating:
Your comment on “Tucker Carlson being spotted in Moscow sparks frenzied speculation” violates the community guidelines and has been rejected
Seraphim HanischWed 07 Feb 2024 05:54:58 AM
I found something interesting in Wikipedia’s description of the government system in Russia: “Federal semi-presidential republic under an authoritarian dictatorship.” I don’t think this is quite right. We as Americans associate dictatorship with Hitler of course, and other really, really bad people – Stalin… right? But Wikipedia sometimes gets politically tooled a bit. I will offer how I understand it – it may be wrong but this is what I actually OBSERVE in life here over almost nine years: Russia is indeed a highly Federal and I would say more strongly “Presidential republic” but I would stop there. The “under authoritarian dictatorship” is a slur directed at President Putin, mainly because he refuses to play the Western game. He is very popular here and I mean it – at street level, so to speak. The sophisticates and students in Moscow and Petersburg are very critical of him… just like liberal elites in America are critical of Trump, for example. But regular people generally either love him, admire him, or are at least content with the way he is running things because Russia is getting stronger all the time. From what I see, this Presidential Republic runs like a monarchy with a Parliament attached. The King often initiates and gives final approval to a policy, but he gives the idea to Parliament (the Duma) to make into legislation and then that legislation is signed by him into law. Sometimes, of course, the Duma creates its own ideas and legislation. (more)
Now the allegation that I was responding to came from the other person, and oddly enough, Wikipedia, for its classifaction of Russian Federation government as a “dictatorship”, which cannot be farther from the truth. Politics infects this site, and in particular this entry, because “the open encyclopedia that anyone can edit” is long gone, replaced by “you will accept what we tell you about X, Y, and Z (though tomorrow it will be different according to OUR wishes.)
To offer a little context, I am reproducing the existing and visible thread in this area that exists on the Newsweek site, with only formatting edits and my removal of the other participant’s name here. He doesn’t need to be harassed; his thoughts and opinions are merely a regurgitation of what a corrupt media have been feeding him:
1 day ago
Replying to Seraphim Hanisch
I wish it were as simple as you say – ideally, you are probably right. But the question is this: Are we really acting like a democracy? Do we really have freedom of the speech and of the Press? I have been unable to post comments on this very site because Newsweek’s AI or whatever seems to think that it is “unsafe” for me to talk about anything I want. How is that freedom of speech? I think it is an insult to you and to me because we are both quite intelligent enough to talk, to disagree and to try to find the truth together. I don’t need a Speech nanny and I don’t want one. Do you?
The Other Writer
20 hours ago
Replying to Seraphim Hanisch
Free speech does not mean that every platform must be forced to let you use it. You have some very mistaken views of the us
5 hours ago
Replying to
The Other Writer
Free speech means “I can say what I want, how I want and where I want”, and in the Constitution the ‘freedom of the press’ is specially noted because the job of the press is to report, criticizen, inform and so on, even if who / what it reports on doesn’t LIKE it. Now, yes, privately owned businesses like Newsweek are free to censor as they please. But it is amazing how what they seem to be doing is to narrow expressed thought to a “acceptable range of ideas.” I think that is manipulative, and it goes against the freedom and liberty we are given as Americans by God. As to whether I am mistaken about the USA, please elucidate. I have only lived the first forty-nine years of my life there. I think I have a Founders’ style view of the nation, especially now from studying American politics “outside the fishbowl”, but I believe that the general state of our nation is that folks rejected God – the Author of their liberty, and that they are trying to redefine this concept of liberty themselves and not doing a good job of it.
The Other Writer
1 day ago
Replying to Seraphim Hanisch
name one major dictator who was benevolent in the modern era
1 day ago
Replying to The Other Writer
Maybe my reply is visible now, but Newsweek initially blocked it and may still be. Short answer in case it doesn’t show: I do not know of one in either the modern era or any other era. But your keywords were “major dictator.” This is irrelevant to reality. President Putin is not a dictator of any type, and most good kings and Tsars and Emperors were not dictators either. Autocrat and dictator are not the same thing. Remember the movie “The Patriot” – Mel Gibson said a great line that is true: “Why should I trade one tyrant three thousand miles away for three thousand tyrants one mile away? An elected legislature can trample a man’s rights as easily as a king.” Bruce, you have the principal ideas right. The problem is that the reality of the world does not fit the definitions. Therefore you presume things about various people and nations that are “by the book” perhaps, and certainly reinforced and I AGREE with the principles of what you say. But reality is different and it is also a little scary. It would be like magic to ensure that Democracy works ALL the time, but democracy strictly speaking is mob rule – what the people feel like is what they do, period. We have a lot of recent events that show this is dangerous. And, the USA is not and never has been a democracy. It is a Representative Republic, to stay that mob mentality and keep it from getting destructive.
The Other Writer
20 hours ago
Replying to Seraphim Hanisch
I understand all the finer shades which devolve into sophistry. Dictator, autocrat, strong man, tyrant, these are all words describing essentially the same thing. Someone who clings to power with no popular mandate using violence and intim idation. Putin poisons his rivals. Need I say more, honestly??!!
5 hours ago
Replying to
The Other Writer
Well, that is actually not right. At least not like I think you mean it. Russia actually DOES have a problem regarding leadership. The best way I can describe it is that the nation is still psychologically shattered from several factors (1) a centuries-long perceived inadequacy to the West. St Petersburg was essentially built to prove to the Western Europeans that Russians were not a bunch of bearded primitives. (2) The Soviet times made people really crazy and concerned each about his own welfare. (3) This one you may not know – the collapse of the Soviet Union – both the leadup under President Gorbachev (who is roundly despised here), and the 1990s (right after the fall of Communism) were far worse for modern Russians than the pogroms of the 1930s and that stuff. During Yeltsin’s presidency there was absolute financial and economic devastation. Everything collapsed – police, military, economy – no one had money but a few very crafty people who jumped on the collapse and made HUGE money from it (hence our oligarchs). Putin was brought into power by Yeltsin when he resigned. Putin has done a lot to restructure the country… (more)
5 hours ago
Replying to Seraphim Hanisch
One of the things he did was to get many oligarchs out of Moscow. He did this by appointing them to governorship positions in far-away provinces sometimes. He said “use your wealth to go improve this part of Russia” and they did it. Maybe a bit of coercion, maybe not, but they did it. It is a mess. But all of this that I so briefly mentioned also created a leadership vacuum here. One of the reasons we don’t get a different leader than Putin for so long is that there is no one else yet on the radar who can do all the things President Putin does. That is why I talk of Navalny as a “one-issue” candidate. Even if he is spot on about corruption, he doesn’t know what else to do or how to fix it. He doesn’t know how to lead this place. A real concern in Russia is “Who comes after Putin?” because he is getting older and will not live forever. No one knows the answer. I had hopes for Sergey Sobyanin, Moscow’s mayor, who has done wonders for the city, but he flubbed up during COVID and I don’t know if he will learn from that. So, the thing you don’t know is what I just said. It is a very important thing to consider. “Who will lead us orphans?” is still the question here.
5 hours ago
Replying to Seraphim Hanisch
And that quote is from Boris Gudonov, the book and opera. “Who will take care of us orphans?” the cry of the people at the death of their Tsar. Russia has never really changed from this elemental mindset, and there is no reason for them to do so. But we don’t have a new leader yet. It may be when we actually get the restoration of the Tsar, as is prophesied (another aspect of Russia – we believe in the fulfillment of Christian elders’ prophecies – because they happen!) Russia is like that – we take God and his plans seriously.
1 day ago
Replying to Seraphim Hanisch
And that bit about “three thousand tyrants one mile away…” well, what about our administrative state? Why is our southern border open and why does the Senate think it a good idea to allow 5000-8500 illegals through a day, give them green cards and money and a quick path to citizenship – when most of the American population and almost ALL of the LEGAL immigrants are outraged about this? Republicans helped craft that idiot piece of legislation. I would be all for doing what should have happened on “one-six”: It should have been a people’s inquisition of Congress, with a whole lot of people being immediately and forcibly removed from office for the crime of not representing their consitutuents. That is what I think.
The Other Writer
20 hours ago
Replying to Seraphim Hanisch
it is not possible to be a “tyrant” if you can be voted out of office. So far, there are no tyrants in the US.
5 hours ago
Replying to The Other Writer
Okay, that may be true or it may not. BUT – someone, anyone, may govern like a tyrant at any time and in any place. I think it is about the tyrannical characteristic not the political definition (assuming yours is correct) of the word “tyrant.” I would say that tyrannical rule in the US is when the government begins acting like “the ruling class” which was NEVER supposed to happen here. I think it largely has. I don’t think Congress represents people like you and me for the most part, I think those people chase donor money and do the bidding of those who donate. Hence, I am all for term limits and some way to prevent ANY congressional member, House or Senate, from receiving any sort of money, gift or anything other than their stipend for serving the government. The tyranny may not actually be FROM Congress and the President, but it is acting THROUGH them. Do you think that might be true?
The Other Writer
Replying to Seraphim Hanisch
Jan 6 was a blatant ham handed coup attempt. Our election was the most scrutinized and adjudicated in history and it was squeaky clean. 60 separate court cases found this I’m surprised you are a J6er. I had such high hopes. You are not worth any more of my time if you cannot see that truth.
5 hours ago
Replying to The Other Writer
No, no, Other. You have me wrong. I don’t know what a “J6-er” is (how you define it), but my view is even more unpopular and probably dangerous. I think what actually happened that day was tragic, and it was manipulated into existence not from the Trump side. But have you ever heard the saying about Congress “Throw the bums out!!”? That is what I think should happen, and what I wish HAD happened that day. It is admittedly pretty fiery, and it is probably a good thing that it didn’t actually happen, but well… I don’t know if you like how Biden is leading but I find it execrable and – to me – it looks like he is doing, very precisely and deliberately, each and every thing needed to destroy our nation (as founded). I know he has spoken on the idea of getting the population to a less than fifty percent white european race level. I think this is a racist view, liberal style, because race does not matter. What a person looks like is unimportant (so says Martin Luther King), what his CHARACTER is like IS important. Amazing how easily this is ignored. But I don’t think I am a “J6-er” the way you might expect. Probably much worse. ))
So, what does all this say? Probably that I spend too much time talking about politics like this. But I do. I might even be wrong about my assertions – this would not be the first time. But one of our biggest and best rights is the right to be wrong. Now, I don’t think I am wrong – I think my time and observation of the Russian people and their nation have given me at least SOME insights, many of which came because they themselves told me. But Newsweek considers itself to have a responsibility to prevent people from getting information that “isn’t safe”, but why isn’t it safe?
With Tucker Carlson’s interview with President Putin on the way, I think we are going to find out why it isn’t safe. There is a good chance that this interview will fly in the face of the American media narrative about Russia in a big way. While the damage controllers will be very clever and swift to paint Mr. Carlson as a Russian sycophant, the next interview he wants to do is with Volodymyr Zelensky.
Do you think he is going to get that interview? And, what does it mean if Zelensky says “no?” (which is quite likely.)
Stay tuned, the Games are about to get really, really intense.
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of this site. This site does not give financial, investment or medical advice.
i get paid $200+ per day using my mobile in my part time. Last month i got my 4th paycheck of $10,865 and i just do this work in my part time. its an easy and awesome home based job. Anybody can do this. . . . .
More Details this Link————–>>https://shorturl.at/hoqT4
Last edited 2 years ago by LillyGreenwood
Arlene
February 8, 2024
The person you were exchanging comments with was a Democratic party operative. Evidence? “Our election was squeaky clean.” It was far from “squeaky clean.”
Yeah, right? This is called “willful delusion.” It is kind of frightening how much folks repeat “the line” – ANY line… As De-Vo sung once “Freedom of choice is what we got, freedom FROM choice… is what we want…”
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue to use this site we will assume that you are happy with it.
Seraphim Hanisch
i get paid $200+ per day using my mobile in my part time. Last month i got my 4th paycheck of $10,865 and i just do this work in my part time. its an easy and awesome home based job. Anybody can do this.
.
.
.
.
More Details this Link————–>> https://shorturl.at/hoqT4
The person you were exchanging comments with was a Democratic party operative. Evidence? “Our election was squeaky clean.” It was far from “squeaky clean.”
Yeah, right? This is called “willful delusion.” It is kind of frightening how much folks repeat “the line” – ANY line… As De-Vo sung once “Freedom of choice is what we got, freedom FROM choice… is what we want…”
Not for me, though.