THIS IS MORE LIKE IT

       Contrary to what many believe, a lot of us who've opposed the New Right and dare to criticize Trump 47 actually do wish that Trump 45 would come back. Trump's previous term actually did have a strong populist element; and the Globalists, Red Pills, and other assorted extremists were the ones sitting outside the fence throwing stones. That situation has very much been reversed, to put it mildly. 

       Thus when the President signed another Executive Order yesterday, we feared for the worst despite the superficial positive opening. After reading the official statement from the White House and the Executive Order itself (three times to make certain that I wasn't dreaming), it almost felt like 2017 all over again. 

       "Endemic vagrancy, disorderly behavior, sudden confrontations, and violent attacks have made our cities unsafe.  The number of individuals living on the streets in the United States on a single night during the last year of the previous administration — 274,224 — was the highest ever recorded.  The overwhelming majority of these individuals are addicted to drugs, have a mental health condition, or both.  Nearly two-thirds of homeless individuals report having regularly used hard drugs like methamphetamine, cocaine, or opioids in their lifetimes.  An equally large share of homeless individuals reported suffering from mental health conditions.  The Federal Government and the States have spent tens of billions of dollars on failed programs that address homelessness but not its root causes, leaving other citizens vulnerable to public safety threats.

Shifting homeless individuals into long-term institutional settings for humane treatment through the appropriate use of civil commitment will restore public order.  Surrendering our cities and citizens to disorder and fear is neither compassionate to the homeless nor other citizens.  My Administration will take a new approach focused on protecting public safety."

      The 'new approach' is summarized as follows:

• The Order directs the Attorney General to reverse judicial precedents and end consent decrees that limit State and local governments’ ability to commit individuals on the streets who are a risk to themselves or others.  
• The Order requires the Attorney General to work with the Secretary of Health and Human Services, Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, and the Secretary of Transportation to prioritize grants for states and municipalities that enforce prohibitions on open illicit drug use, urban camping and loitering, and urban squatting, and track the location of sex offenders.
• The Order redirects funding to ensure that individuals camping on streets and causing public disorder and that are suffering from serious mental illness or addiction are moved into treatment centers, assisted outpatient treatment, or other facilities.
• The Order ensures discretionary grants for substance use disorder prevention, treatment, and recovery do not fund drug injection sites or illicit drug use.
• The Order stops sex offenders who receive homelessness assistance from being housed with children, and allows programs to exclusively house women and children.

       This move was long overdue. The scourge of homelessness/vagrancy has been a blot on our society for far too long, and the President is correct in saying that the policies pretending to address the problem have failed. Of the number of around 275,000 cited in Executive Order, it's estimated that about 1/2 to 2/3 of that total infest the West Coast. Some cities in California, Oregon, and Washington have become virtually uninhabitable because of it. 

     More to the point, the Executive Order goes beyond the superficial element of enforcement: it emphasizes rehabilitation and treatment for addiction and mental illness---things which none of the progressive policies promoted by the West Coast's Democrat Establishment ever bothered to address. In many ways, it's reminiscent of the successful campaign against the Opioid Crisis which saw overdose deaths and addiction rates decline between 2017-2019.

    Let's hope that this implemented and we'll be watching to see if it all goes off as planned. As was true of the anti-Opioid Program under Trump 45, there were a lot of vested interests who don't want such beneficial policies to succeed. As long as those interests can't interfere, this can nothing but improve Quality of Life for millions. 

THE ILLUSION OF OPPOSITION

    Since the Civil War broke out in Palestine six weeks ago, the already low bar that passes for American sociopolitical leadership has managed to sink to even deeper levels of depravity and mendacity than many of us thought possible. It was becoming apparent---in fact obvious---during the last decade the political, academic, and journalistic class are nothing more than the most debased and degraded toadies and sycophantic slaves of the vested financial interests. Homo 'equality;' the interventions in the Middle East; the Scamdemic; the staged race-riots; the 2020 Putsch; the 'stand with Ukraine' nonsense---all of these things were rooted in the most transparent lies accompanied with Cancel Culture to enforce the Official Narrative.

   Up until October 7th, when the Gaza Conflict began, there was a modicum of challenge to the Official Narrative in the so-called 'Conservative' Media, albeit mostly moderate and token resistance. Since October, the masks have come off. The grovelling subservience of the Conservative Establishment to the Military-Industrial Complex and the Israel Lobby (both of whom play both sides of the American political fence) has become too transparent to be denied any longer; and they have finally exposed themselves as merely one faction of the Corporate-controlled Deep State, regardless of whatever lip-service they pay to defending our values and heritage. 

     The standard Liberal talking-point that the Democrats stood for the average man was an illusion that dissipated into the ether during the Clinton co-presidency. Obama brought it back during his campaign, but quickly abandoned it. Nobody other than the most hopelessly out-of-touch actually believes that the Democrats still care about the interests of working Americans or about alleviating poverty. 

    The Conservatives, in contrast, at least had some fundamental core principles: the right to life, liberty, and property (or at least so they said). "Faith, Family, and Freedom" was a slogan heard during Republican political campaigns. This pretense lost any credibility during the last month. Not only have they officially reversed course on the Right to Life, they've openly celebrated the ongoing slaughter in Gaza---positions which have only compounded all of their other crimes and betrayals. 

   There isn't any political solution to any of the problems facing our nation. Our problem is a spiritual one---or, more accurately, a lack of any values that we, as a culture, collectively hold. It may be comforting to talk about our Founding Principles, but we need to understand that not one single institution in the United States currently honors or holds to them. We need to ask ourselves, in the midst of all of this electoral hoopla, what exactly, at this point, that we're supposed to be supporting?

    As Chris Hedges recently said: "When optimism is not based in reality, it's no longer hope, it's fantasy." What do people who support the current Republican Party hope to accomplish by returning them to power? That predatory 'woke' Corporations will suddenly become less fanatical and predatory? Why does anybody expect that a movement's media that repeatedly lies to us is going to be transparent? Does anyone believe that a Party with no respect for human life will respect theirs? That a Party that supports crushing independence movements will care about our freedoms? Does anyone imagine that a Party exalting Force and Fear as legitimate means of political expression will defend our rights? 

   It's fantasy, as Hedges says. Wrong needs to be called out, exposed, and resisted no matter what its source. 

   

A QUESTION FOR CHRISTIAN CONSERVATIVES

      As it is beginning to appear more and more likely that 2023's October Surprise is leading to some type of US-involved conflict in the Middle East, we've been having a lively debate on Citizen Tom's blog  about the nature of this involvement. Though we take polar-opposite positions on this issue, it's refreshing to listen to reasoned and civil discussion from the other side for a change. Readers can follow the link if they wish to consider our respective points. I mentioned one issue, though, which I feel needs to be fleshed-out for wider discussion. 

     The general consensus of many who support a Second War on Terror goes back to something that Bush raised after the 9/11 attacks. Bush stated that the perpetrators of that crime were ideological fanatics who "hate us because of our freedoms," and that they represented "a threat to our way of life." Bush won considerable support from many of us, because---in 2001---these statements basically were true. What Bush did afterwards: subverting our freedoms and sabotaging our way of life is another story. Obama continued his policies, Trump failed to scale any of them back, the Biden/Harris Junta has accelerated them infinitely; and the Junta's nominal political opposition wants an even greater acceleration. A lot of the same rhetoric from 2001 is coming back in 2023; but the situation has changed radically since then. 

   That brings up the heart of the question. What exactly of our 'freedoms' and 'way of life' do we have left to us that are worth defending? 

   Already in the United States, about 90% of the population is upholding another 10% who control about 90% of our economy and about 100% of our sociopolitical infrastructure. By 'defending our freedoms,' they mean defending their privileges and by 'protecting our way of life,' they mean their way of life. Make no mistake about it: they fully intend that we of the 90% are going to make all the sacrifices involved in this defense. Through the psyop Strategy of Tension they will keep the 90% disunified and through the policy of Managed Democracy pretend that they have a popular mandate. 

   Is this what we really want to fight for? The 'right' of Big Ag and Big Pharma to poison our society with unsafe food, water, and drugs? The 'right' of the Academic Mafia to turn our public schools into re-education camps? The 'right' of unelected Corporate and Financial bureaucrats to combine and impose social engineering schemes upon us? The 'right' of the Deep State to tax us with no accountability for how the money is spent? The 'right' of militarized police forces to invade our privacy, impose lockdowns, and soft Martial Law any time they feel like it? The 'right' of professional politicians to surfeit in wealth and luxury by taking legalized bribes to look the other way at issues that need addressing? The 'right' of the Tech Lords and Big Media to decide for us what is and isn't acceptable discourse? 

   Things like Faith, Family, and Property Rights were the foundations of earlier causes to defend our country. All three of these traditions are under deliberate and sustained attack---not by foreign governments or ideologies, but by the very people who are calling upon us to defend our way of life now. Why should we fight for them? 

   If we actually had a Christian Conservative Movement again, we would have put the brakes on these abuses and injustices long before we arrived at the brink of a Third World War. Citizen Tom brought up the very valid point that---in the present situation now at least---opposing our system means justifying the nations that our Oligarchs have designated as enemies. That's a fair point: and it's not a delightful thought to consider that the Communist Party of China and the Islamic Republic of Iran are part of the last line of defense between Civilization and Technofascist Barbarism; however the complete inaction of Americans to elicit any sort of pushback (and worse, actual cooperation with) the objectives of the Oligarchs and the Great Reset have made this situation what it is. 

   The brutality of the Israeli Government against Gaza is the logical extension of the kind of ruthlessness and police terrorism unleashed during the Scamdemic of 2020-2022. As bad as things were in the United States, others of our Western 'allies' were going to even greater extremes: forced vaccinations, travel permits, quarantine camps, brutal suppression of dissent; and the Trudeau Regime in Canada probably topped all of them to point where even the Governments of China and North Korea were calling out their repressive measures. 

   However, what we're witnessing in the Gaza Strip isn't the culmination of Great Reset savagery, like the Canadian example it is setting the precedent for how the Great Reset is intended to be implemented universally. The Globalist Oligarchs are not joking when they're talking about depopulation, a global surveillance state, and the necessity of Woke Corporatists to manage the world's economies and order our societies. At least the Chinese Communists and Islamic Republicans are not threatening us with that. 

   Citizen Tom points out---again correctly---that we don't live in a perfect world. I agree with that, and often our lives are faced with the choice of lesser of two evils. 80-plus years ago, the Roosevelt and Churchill Administrations certainly had many policies worthy of criticism, but these rather paled against the objectives of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. Today the situation is reversed. Chinese Commissars and Iranian Ayatollahs may not be role models of ideally managed Governments, but they aren't talking about wiping out high percentages of the Earth's population, reducing the rest to slavery and establishing a new Master Race either. 

   The Conservative Christian approach, as I see it, would be for the United States to get out of the Middle East altogether. Humanitarian aid, yes; but not a drop of blood or money for the Oligarchs to extend their hegemony. Instead, we should raise our calls of unity and sacrifice to addressing our own multitudinous domestic problems. Sadly, though, there isn't the popular or political will for that, so it may come down to our so-called enemies' responses.

GODLESS CAPITALISM IS NO SOLUTION EITHER

    Our old friends among the smug, self-appointed Neocon Intellectual Elite are at it yet again. Victor Davis Hanson---a gadfly who keeps popping up on Conservative forums because of his ability to sound smart by throwing endless historical and philosophical non sequiturs into his various jeremiads against the current state of society---has written another such specimen titled American Delira. 

   Hanson's basic premise is that Americans have become weak and degenerate (which is true); but not because of social apathy, rampant narcissism, and corporate totalitarianism. Instead, he believes that Americans aren't working hard enough, have been too prosperous, and have had too much freedom of expression. It's as if the 9/11 Anniversary brought back fond memories of the erection of the Security State and Bush Administration attitude of don't ask questions, just trust us. (Which, BTW, is the same general attitude of the RNC when asked about their objectives in the upcoming election---assuming that we have an election of course). 

  There seems to be strange assumption on many parts of the political Right that unelected Corporate bureaucrats are more sympathetic to the Rights of Man than elected Governments are. It seems to have escaped their notice that our cultural and economic decline really took off in the 1990s and 2000s decades when we had massive 'deregulation' that created monopolies, lifted controls on lobbying, permitted outsourcing, and created numerous private NGOs and so-called 'Private-Public Partnerships.' People like Hanson look back with nostalgia at eras like the 1950s but forget that the Eisenhower Administration was expanding public investment in infrastructure had very strict regulations against concentrations of wealth. 

   They also seem forget that as private entities, Corporate policies are not subject to Constitutional Law: in other words, the bigger the enterprise the less accountable it is. This week it was announced that Visa and Mastercard were setting up databases to track and record gun purchases. No Government agency is forcing them to do this. Under the US Constitution, a database like this would have to be approved by Congress and subjected to Judicial Review by the federal courts. But Visa and Mastercard are private entities and not subject to this kind of oversight. These two corporations also control 77% of market-share. In fact, there's nothing really stopping them from banning gun purchases from their system altogether. If anyone believes that this can't happen, consider that these same people blockaded transactions to Wikileaks just a few years ago. If the 'power to tax is the power to destroy', it shouldn't be forgotten that the power to control private transactions is also the power to destroy. 

    In his article, Hanson remarks that "Properly understood, wokeness is simply the doctrine that all perceived inequality must be the result of culpability, not personal behavior or conduct. There is no role for chance, individual health, inheritance, or character that make us different. There are no cosmic forces like globalization that transcend race. What’s left instead is a nefariousness that divides the world into a collective binary of the noble victimized and their demonic oppressors. Thus, the duty of government and righteous egalitarian culture is to divide the country, in post-Marxist style, to identify the victims/oppressed, and to redistribute power, money, and influence to them. That allows the anointed to condemn the victimizers/oppressors collectively and to stigmatize, ostracize, and enfeeble them." 

  It seems to have escaped Hanson's attention that the distribution of wealth and power has not trickled down during the last three decades: in fact, wealth distribution has become more concentrated in fewer and fewer hands. He says that "thus the duty of government and righteous egalitarian culture is to divide the country" without explaining who benefits from such division. A 'stigmatized, ostracized, and enfeebled' productive class is precisely what the Corporate Overlords want: first, because it eliminates the potential for competition; secondly because less-skilled workers demand lower wages and benefits; and third because they haven't the initiative, resources, or organization to challenge the Oligarchy politically. 

   Hanson rather disingenuously adds that: "Every agency available—government, popular culture, science, history, literature, the arts, the university, the media, big tech, the corporate boardroom, and Wall Street—must be subordinated and recalibrated to spot supposed inequality so that they can fix it through reparatory discrimination. All being equal and poorer is preferable to all being richer, but with some richer than others," as if none of these institutions has the power to resist wokeness. The fact is that government, the media, academia, and the boardrooms are completely under the thumb of Wall Street---and it is Big Business, not Big Government, that is driving the woke agenda. 

   If anyone would like an example of what an unregulated Corporate social order would look like, one need look no further than the World Economic Forum. The Top 100 'Strategic Partners'---promoting such polices as the Great Reset, depopulation, and 'smart cities'---have among American representation alone the following:

   AIG Insurance, Amazon, Bain & Company, Bank of America, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, BlackRock, Boston Consulting Group, Bridgewater Associates, Chevron, Cisco Systems, CitiBank, Clayton, Dubilier,& Rice, Coca-Cola, Dell Technologies, Deloitte, Dow Chemical, Goldman-Sachs, Google, Hewlett-Packard, Honeywell, IBM, Infosys, Intel, Johnson & Johnson, JP Morgan-Chase Bank, JLL Investments, Kearney Consulting Group, ManPower Group, Marsh McLennan Consulting Group, Mastercard, McKinsey & Co., Meta (Facebook), Microsoft, Morgan-Stanley, Open Society Foundation (Soros), Palantir Technologies, PayPal, PepsiCo, Proctor & Gamble, Salesforce, Uber, UPS, Verizon, and Visa.

   Foreign-owned Companies heavily invested in the US include: Allianz Insurance (Pemco in the US), AstraZeneca, Alibaba, British Petroleum, Credit Suisse, DHL, Ericsson-Sony, Hitachi, HSBC, Huawei, Lazard Advertising, Mitsubishi, Nestle, Novartis, Pfizer,  Publicis Group (owns Zenith in the US), Royal Dutch Shell Oil, Royal Dutch-Phillips, Saudi Aramco, Siemens Electric, Takeda Pharmaceutical, Unilever, Volkswagen, and Volvo.

   This isn't even counting the two hundred or so 'Associate Partners' who also are on board with the WEF Agenda. Here we only listed the ones based or operating in the United States. This combined level of capital, if it were an independent country, have more assets than the national GDP of every country except the US and China. Is anyone going to pretend that a bloc like this stands for Free Enterprise and Free Markets? 

   People like Hanson ought to reflect that the WEF holds annual meetings with it's so-called 'stakeholders' and governments send representatives there. Are these corporations and cartels protesting to any of these leaders about excessive 'wokeness?' 

     If anyone is still inclined to doubt this, they need simply observe the modern 'woke' Police State known as Canada. The entire leadership of that nation is under the WEF jackboot. Every year, the WEF selects and honors a group of 'Young Global Leaders'---the very fact that they are doing this ought to be a huge red flag as to what the objective of these corporations really is. The WEF for 'security reasons' doesn't reveal all the names, but that didn't stop Klaus Schwab from boasting in 2017 that "I was at a reception for Prime Minister Trudeau, and I know that half of this cabinet, or even more, are actually Young Global Leaders of the World Economic Forum."

Here are some of the ones that we know of: 

Justin Trudeau (2005) Strongman and de facto dictator Prime Minister.

Chrystia Freeland (2005) Deputy Prime Minister under Tiananmen Trudeau, encouraged brutal suppression of the Truckers' Protest.

Melanie Joly (2016) Foreign Minister

Francois-Phillippe Champagne (2009) Minister of Industry. Former executive with WEF Top 100 Strategic Partner, ABB Technologies. 

Karina Gould (2020) Minister of Family, Children, and Social Welfare

Sean Fraser (2022) Minister of Immigration

Dishonorable Mention:

Ricken Patel (2010) CEO of Anglosphere 'activist' social media powerhouse Avaaz, a Soros-funded front. 

Dominique Anglade (2014) Deputy Premier of Quebec; pushed extreme lockdown measures.

Jagmeet Singh (2018) Head of the New Democratic Party and MP from Ontario, instigator of Truckers' Protest suppression.

   “'Capitalism as we know it is dead' the WEF says. And thus ‘stakeholder capitalism’ is needed. In this case, rather than pursuing profits, companies would 'pursue the wellbeing of all people and the entire planet.' Essentially ‘stakeholder capitalism’, would be capitalism with a dose of Marxism, which the WEF believes is needed for capitalism to survive...'The Great Reset' would also serve as a way to tackle the ongoing climate crisis. This 'fourth industrial revolution' would include accelerating efforts to reach net zero emissions... It would push all countries to become digital and 'will lead to fusion of our physical, our digital and our biological identities' says Klaus Schwab, executive chairman of the WEF. It is also said that 'America will no longer be a world superpower', but instead 'a handful of countries will dominate.'" Corporate Media 'fact-checkers', incidentally, deny that the WEF is engaged in any kind of global government conspiracy. 

  Here, though, we have Hanson's parroting the same Corporate party-line while posing as opposition: "What will end wokeness? The reversal of the leisure and affluence that were the bounties of 233 years of what birthed it—free-market capitalism, constitutional government, meritocracy, human rights, tolerance, and free expression...Destroy the bounty that produced and empowered the woke decadence, and we won’t have anything—the woke included. Wokeism is, for now, an affordable irrelevancy that rests on the wealth and lessons produced by those long dead and now much rebuked. But it won’t remain affordable."

  How exactly is Hanson's position materially different from Schwab's? One offers a future where we'll own nothing and be happy, the other tells that we'll own nothing and be hopeful. 

  This notion is reflective of a concept which Neocons promote for everyone other than themselves: rugged individualism. Despite the revisionist history surrounding the term, our forefathers probably never heard of it since its first known use was during the 1930 mid-term elections. President Hoover's Interior Secretary explained to the media that:  "It is common talk that every individual is entitled to economic security. The only animals and birds I know that have economic security are those that have been domesticated—and the economic security they have is controlled by the barbed-wire fence, the butcher's knife and the desire of others. They are milked, skinned, egged or eaten up by their protectors." His interpretation of the term was obviously much different that the way that today's 'Conservatives' mean it. Hoover's position was not the 'lift-yourself-up-by-the-bootstraps' snake oil peddled by today's pundit. Hoover's belief was that American initiative and commitment to Christian principles of duty to one's neighbor would play out and solve the economic crisis.

   The Official Narrative as the term is used today is provided for us by Wikipedia: "American rugged individualism has its origins in the American frontier experience. Throughout its evolution, the American Frontier was generally sparsely populated and had very little infrastructure in place. Under such conditions, individuals had to provide for themselves to survive." 

  The Unofficial Narrative (i.e. the truth) is that the American frontier was settled by pioneers who arrived in convoys of wagon trains, usually from an established settlement. The pioneers---so far from 'rugged individualists' depended upon each other to a huge extent. They took turns working in teams to build each others' cabins and barns; as well as clearing, plowing, planting and harvesting each others' fields. When we read of stories of frontiersmen like Davy Crockett and Daniel Boone; it's often forgotten that they were leaders of hunting parties and that the extraordinary amount of game that they harvested was dressed, processed, and sent to the community where it was divided up for wintertime use. Widows with families got an equal portion despite not participating in the hunt. Collecting firewood was carried out much the same way. The community's women would do similar things, forming teams to weave clothes and blankets and preserve food. 

   If one seriously thinks about it, the odds of lone individuals with an "I got mine, screw everybody else" attitude surviving on the frontier were very remote. Consider that the Indians---who were already used to frontier life---lived in mutualist communities. The revisionism has been difficult to dismiss in our national psychology. The majority of Americans perceive wealth and success to be the outcome of individual talent, effort, and entrepreneurship and see poverty due to bad choices or lack of effort, according to recent Pew Research polls. This is basically Hanson's position:  that the poor could become rich if they tried hard enough. It's an illusion, and Hanson knows it. It's also essentially little more than apology for Crony Capitalism, and a rationalization for blind selfishness and outright greed.  

  We will elaborate a bit further on this latter point in a future article, but suffice to say for now that top-down imposed 'wokeism' is a problem of the American people's own making---the political Right included. This is a Third Rail Topic among both Republicans and Libertarians---for obvious reasons they don't want to admit to their culpability in creating the problem, and calling out their own constituency for its hypocrisy isn't considered a good electoral strategy. However, it's necessary. The Right needs a thorough spiritual cleansing and owning up to the American People is the first step to rebuilding. The President-in-Exile Donald Trump is heroically attempting to do something similar through purely political means, but his efforts are going to come up short. What we need on the Right is a secular version of the Catholic Sacrament of Penance or 'wokeness' is going to continue rolling over us without significant opposition. 

   

    

  

   

   

NONE DARE CALL IT CENSORSHIP

    The Whacko Left Wing has been celebrating this week over the success of their pressure-tactics against website Kiwi Farms. Kiwi Farms has been around for awhile, it was basically a site similar to Reddit although geared to (mostly humorous) discussions of public figures and causes. The Left characterized Kiwi Farms as a 'Right-Wing Hate Site' even though Alt-Right figures like Marjorie Taylor-Greene, Vox Day and Owen Benjamin  frequently unleashed their wrath at Kiwi Farms threads and called for Cancel Culture to be invoked on their own. 

    Kiwi Farms also had threads calling out nutcases on the Left which naturally drew down the ire of the Gay Mafia, whom for obvious reasons dislike having their activities exposed. In the Postmodern West, being accused of homophobia is an unforgivable social crime---no one apparently stopping to think that the term is a meaningless neologism and not even close to a legal term. The Whacko Left pressured Cloudfare---which has a de facto monopoly on website security systems---to remove Kiwi Farms, effectively taking it offline since no search engine supports a website without that system in place. Not surprisingly, the pressure-group behind this was based in Canada. 

    The NPCs were out in full force celebrating the news. Whereas in our grandparents time, people reacted to speech they objected to simply by turning a page or inserting a pair of ear-plugs; our enlightened era doesn't think it's accomplished anything unless they've prevented everyone else from hearing it. It's rather like the dystopian novel Brave New World where if anyone felt unhappy, that became all of society's problem. Interestingly enough, it's also characteristic behavior of prepubescent girls who, notoriously, when they're mad at someone want everyone else to be mad at them too. 

   Cancel Culture---like most of postmodernism---relates to that kind of childish immaturity more than we might want to believe. The whole utopia envisioned by the Great Reset's architects are essentially about returning humanity back to the state of childhood. The masses will be given a room, their surrogate parents overlords will provide them with appropriate food and clothing, monitor their whereabouts, take them to the doctor when sick, etc. Of course there will also be discipline for the few naughty ones  dissidents who don't obey Big Brother  society's norms, but that aspect of the programme is rarely mentioned. 

   

    When platforms and persons get cancelled, there is widespread criticism of Corporate censorship. This is, however, a misnomer and it detracts from the roots of the real issue. Only Government can commit actual censorship. Private Corporations are legally free to set any terms they choose for whatever content they decide to host: and this is how it should be if we want to Property Rights. 

   The problem is though that we have allowed Corporations like Cloudfare to grow so large and so powerful that they de facto have the power of a government with none of its responsibilities. For example, consider the case with Youtube a subsidiary of Google which is itself a subsidiary of Alphabet, Inc. Youtube has been on a recent spate of highly selective content-removal. Youtube's CEO is Susan Wojcicki, who is not only deeply connected with the Great Reset, her brother-in-law was one of the co-founders of Google and top shareholder in Alphabet; which itself is a Top 100 Strategic Partner at the WEF. WEF 'partner' banks hold about 13% of Alphabet stock combined. Now it may be pointed out that there are smaller platforms for video-sharing available: it may be so, but Google currently holds 91% of search-engine capacity. That is not likely to change either there are literally hundreds of revolving-door personnel between Google and the US Government. Alphabet currently has 79 Beltway lobbyists---61 of whom are also revolving-door former federal bureaucrats.

     The case with Youtube could be repeated across the board with any major platform with only minor variations. Whenever we run into economies driven by massive combines and cartels that hold overwhelming majorities of market-shares, we no longer have a Free Market and are really no better off than countries which have State-controlled Media. 

    Younger readers who don't remember the days before there was an Internet need to understand that mass-communication then (print media, radio, and television) had the same problems. There was no shortage of outlets promoting crackpot conspiracy theories, sordid rumors and gossip, and promoting what is called today 'hate speech.' 

     We didn't resort to censorship or Cancel Culture back then because there were multiple platforms available, and publications and broadcasts which were odious were generally ignored or at least marginalized and laughed at. What changed with the Internet was that most of the platforms came together under single web-hosts. It also didn't help matters when the Clinton Administration---aided and abetted by Neocon Corporate toadies in Congress---stripped away laws prohibiting concentrated power in media. 

    From a political and economic perspective, the answer to our growing problems surrounding free speech is not to extend such powers: what we actually need is more consumer/creator choice in platforms. To draw an analogy: before there was Cable TV, NBC, CBS, ABC were about the only American television networks in existence. However, there were laws limiting how many television stations they could directly own and limits to how much marketshare they could have in specific geographic areas (radio and newspapers had similar limitations). Most stations were independent and could run syndicated and independent programming (this was the precursor to Cable TV). There were also limitations against interlocking Corporate Boards of Directors and stock-ownership. For example, no one could sit on both the Boards of CBS and ABC; and no one could own stock in multiple media venues. We lost those kinds of regulations in the 1990s; and we only have an illusion of choice in today's digital media because, despite having unlimited choices in platforms the platforms are all run by the same people.

     This situation not only gives the Corporate Oligarchs undue power; it paradoxically empowers the fringe-groups who want to control Free Speech. To draw another analogy with the past, consider the difficulty of an interest group's ability to silence 20,000 independent radio stations as opposed to influencing one Internet Provider. Likewise if there were 20 security-systems to choose from and 30 different search-engine companies---all with roughly equal market-share and independent of Crony Capitalist influence---there wouldn't be any controversy about Internet 'censorship;' and these proponents of Cancel Culture would be only a bunch of harmless cranks instead of an outright social menace. 

    Of course, solutions like these would never suit the interests of the Crony Capitalist cabal which actually controls both our economic and social policies. It is in their interest to keep Cancel Culture going strong because it keeps the population divided, provides a plausible excuse for silencing sites that are obnoxious to their interests, and terrorizes the population into conformity. Monopoly control over mediums of expression allows the Oligarchy to manufacture a 'narrative' and pretend that it is a consensus. Going against that consensus could result in being cancelled. 

   In other words, creating both a uniform social consensus and a corresponding climate of fear means for the individual that his identity is defined by social acceptance and that acceptance is actually being manufactured. It creates an illusion of freedom where none actually exists because silencing dissent becomes in itself a liberating act: it 'frees' people from 'threats' to their freedom. As an example of how this perverse logic operates, consider what a troon writer for corporate-controlled Slate Magazine had to say:

  "As this effort has gone on, Kiwi Farms and its defenders have tried to wrap themselves in the cloak of speech, painting opponents as attempting to suppress free expression. That gets it exactly backward: All those who genuinely love free speech should rejoice at Cloudflare finally dropping the site, thereby making it far harder for the forum to remain accessible on the web. If the larger effort to drive Kiwi Farms off the internet succeeds, survivors of the harassment campaigns, long silenced by fear, may at last be able to re-enter the public sphere and use their voices freely."

  What this character doesn't realize is that that is the very same argument that his opponents could easily use for suppressing magazines like Slate which they consider hostile to their views. Predictably, throughout the Slate article all of the arguments are predicated on the fake news that Kiwi Farms was a 'hate site' (whatever that means) that was inciting violence. The very fact that every Corporate Media outlet which has bothered to cover the Kiwi Farms story uses almost exactly the same talking-points ought to tell us that the campaign was hardly a grass-roots effort organized by some hysterical, gender-dysphoric Internet 'influencer'. More likely this person was a prop; and the fact that Cloudfare rather dramatically caved in less than a week after initially refusing demands to deplatform Kiwi Farms (and that none of their competitors will touch KF despite its heavy traffic) is a fairly strong indication that the pressure Cloudfare really got came from a much higher source. A good bet about that source would be to look at Cloudfare's top shareholders:

Morgan Stanley (WEF) 13%

Fidelity FMR (WEF) 6%

Blackrock (WEF) 5%

State Street (WEF) 2%

    Additionally the Top 10 Cloudfare shareholders have a combined total of 91 Beltway lobbyists; 63 of whom are revolving-door former federal officials. In this day and age though it would be considered radical to imagine that that degree of power and influence had anything whatsoever to do with Cloudfare's decision. In case anybody is wondering, the Federal Communications Commission has been headed by either a former lawyer or a former lobbyist for Big Tech/Big Media since 1993. 

   The future of Free Speech at this point is not looking especially promising; we still are awaiting some court decisions relating to the upcoming show-trial for Julian Assange which is very likely to make a bad situation even worse. Sadly, there is very little---if any---real impetus among Conservatives to do much to defend Free Speech. Just about all of the commentary coming out of most punditry on the Right is  hoping for some 'Red Wave' to come along and play Cancel Culture with the Left. That isn't going to help anything even if it does happen. 

   Earlier American dead White males jurists and political philosophers taught that the best way to combat bad speech was in the Marketplace of Ideas. That's still true, but we'll need a free market again before that can happen.