Categories
Bitcoin central banking Cryptocurrency Dollar Economic Crisis Federal Reserve fiat currency free market Gold gold trade government regulation Headline News Intelwars Pay Off Debt Precious Metals rate hikes savings stimulus United States

NO RATE HIKES. GOT IT?

This article was contributed by Future Money Trends. 

One of Future Money Trends’ proudest moments in our newsletter’s history is covering the bullish case of Bitcoin when its price was $13/coin!

It’s been nearly nine years since, and Bitcoin is more relevant and important today than it ever was before.

Its technological adoption by the international community is now a thing of art.

Hype or not and government regulation or not, by this time in 2023, you’ll be seeing Bitcoin ATMs all around you and thousands of businesses accepting the cryptocurrency.

If anything can ever hope to materially change the currency ballgame and the dollar hegemony, it looks like Bitcoin would be it. Having said that, for Bitcoin to reach its reserve role will probably take 15-20 years to develop.

For now, the dollar is what we’re stuck with, unless you prefer one of the other fiat currencies…

 

Courtesy: Zerohedge.com

The global economy had plenty of chances to reinstitute gold as some sort of foundational part of its currency strategy. It has chosen not to do so, and there does not seem to be any strong political, academic, economic, financial, or regulatory will to advance any failsafe that includes it.

If you think about it, letting gold trade freely is actually in our best interest!

I like it when gold trades on the open market since I have an exact system for when to accumulate more ounces:

  1. When gold comprises less than 5% of my net worth. That’s the most important rule of thumb (asset allocation balancing)
  2. When its price falls by 15% or more (buying the dip).
  3. When real interest rates are negative (a hedge against the cost of holding cash)
  4. When my allocation towards stocks is excessive (a hedge against expensive markets)

Courtesy: Zerohedge.com

American consumerism is just not what it used to be!

The millennials saw the unfortunate problems endured by their parents in the 2008 Great Financial Crisis and they’re much more conservative in general.

They are even minimalists.

This fear of an overheated economy is really laughable.

The FED is not going to raise rates with unemployment rates for Asians at 6%, Hispanics at 7.9%, blacks at 9.6%, and whites at 5.4%!

Secondly, there are an estimated 1.6M job seekers who are actively looking and aren’t counted in the official numbers because of the way they are reported.

As you can see from the survey above, most Americans plan on saving their stimulus checks or paying down debt (80% of participants).

Courtesy: Zerohedge

Now, with the euphoria stage out of the way and options traders vanishing from the scene, if the CPI data doesn’t confirm a real threat of inflation (data comes out mid-April), we expect tech to continue leading for years to come.

Don’t be surprised to see rates continue to climb, but as we see it, the 85% rally in yields since the beginning of 2021 is overdone.

Gold has greatly suffered from this bond bear market in 2021. We believe that April might be the best time since June 2019 and March 2020 to own mining equities!

We’ll update on our highest-conviction ideas imminently!

The post NO RATE HIKES. GOT IT? first appeared on SHTF Plan – When It Hits The Fan, Don’t Say We Didn’t Warn You.

Share
Categories
abuse Capitalism control CORRUPTION covid economic Fraud fraudulent free market government is the problem Headline News Health Hoax Intelwars lockdowns myth of authority politically connected scamdemic taxation is theft UNITED KINGDOM wake up waste

New Exposé Shows UK’s COVID Response was Rife with Corruption and Cronyism

This article was originally published by Brad Polumbo at The Foundation For Economic Freedom. 

The United States government’s COVID-19 policy response has proven rife with waste, fraud, and abuse at every turn. From $10 million for gender programs in Pakistan being tied to a COVID relief bill to the expanded unemployment system’s runaway corruption by fraudsters, American pandemic governance in 2020 has seemed like a never-ending cycle of fiscal irresponsibility.

Yet a new exposé by the New York Times shows that the fraudulent and flawed nature of the US’s COVID response is not an outlier by any stretch.

According to the new investigative reporting, the United Kingdom’s COVID response was riddled with cronyism and corruption. The Times analyzed roughly 1,200 government contracts, worth $22 billion in sum, that were dolled out for Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) and other pandemic-related purchases during the immediate aftermath of the outbreak. At least $11 billion—nearly half—went to suspicious contractors.

Roughly $5 billion went to companies with a clear connection to a politician. Nearly $6 billion went to companies with no prior experience in the goods they were contracted to produce, including jewelers, and fashion designers. And more than $5 billion was given to companies with controversial pasts including alleged tax evasion, allegations of human rights violations, and more.

The below graphic from the Times sums up this suspect spending well.

Image Credit: New York Times

Not all of this was necessarily fraudulent or corrupt—but a lot of it sure must be. And this just represents a small slice of the total waste. Many of the contracts that were doled out actually couldn’t be viewed by the Times because the UK government is eschewing normal transparency requirements.

The details get even worse.

House of Lords member Paul Deighton was put in charge of PPE and “helped the government award billions of dollars in contracts—including hundreds of millions to several companies where he has financial interests or personal connections,” the Times reports. The government also created a “VIP lane” that allowed companies recommended by government officials to get fast-tracked contracts that were 10 times more likely to be approved.

The Times notes that “there is no evidence to suggest that government officials were engaged in illegal conduct… but there is ample evidence of cronyism, waste and poor due diligence.” This corrupt government approach stands in stark contrast to how goods are distributed by the market.

In a free market, millions of customers make buying decisions based on their personal appraisal of costs and benefits. So, the overall market outcome is determined by widely dispersed decision-making. This makes it much harder for any one corporation or special interest group to rig a sweetheart deal.

Government officials, however, are not spending their own money, nor are they spending it on themselves. This means that their decisions regarding who gets what are less driven by economic factors and more driven by political factors. What’s more, large government contracts are often determined by a relatively small number of people relative to the free market.

Together, these conditions make corruption and favoritism, also known as cronyism, inevitable.

“Cronyism is the substitution of political influence for free markets,” Mercatus Center economist David R. Henderson explains. “It comes about when the government has a lot of power over private-sector decisions and when the government officials in power have great discretion over how to use it.”

“The more power the government has over the economy, the more allocation of resources will depend on political connections,” he concludes. “The way to eliminate cronyism is to have free markets and little government control.”

As we can see, the British government’s horrific misuse of taxpayer funds is not a one-off incident caused by particularly bad actors or some especially corrupt group of politicians. Rather, it’s just another example of the endemic favoritism and waste that inevitably corrupts all government spending.

The reality is that big government initiatives will always end up funneling money to the well-off and well-connected. And that’s a lesson worth remembering long after the COVID-19 pandemic fades.

The post New Exposé Shows UK’s COVID Response was Rife with Corruption and Cronyism first appeared on SHTF Plan – When It Hits The Fan, Don’t Say We Didn’t Warn You.

Share
Categories
American cost Bullish creating slaves dependence devastation Donald Trump Economy election Federal government free market future taxpayers Headline News Intelwars markets Mathematics middle class elimination obey orders passing legislation selection stealing stimulus checks taxation is theft financial upheaval

NO SACRED COWS: TRUMP SECTION 230 ULTIMATUM!

This article was contributed by Future Money Trends. 

In March, sending $1,200 stimulus checks to each and every American cost current and future taxpayers some $320bn, which is far less than what the federal government spends on many items that are far more wasteful. $600 stimulus checks would using the same mathematics, cost $160bn to the federal government. Even $2,000 checks would run something in the order of $530bn, which, in the big picture, is quite doable.

The Democrats were obviously on board with the idea of $2,000 checks, and now that Donald Trump is championing the notion that China is responsible for this unfortunate turn of events and Americans are victims of this financial upheaval, the $2,000 stimulus check package is becoming a battleground for passing legislation.

Courtesy: Zerohedge.com

As you can see, the “Hard Data,” which is much more helpful at predicting market corrections, is nosediving. “Soft Data,” which is more volatile, is also cratering faster than imaginable, and we believe that it won’t take much for markets to endure a short-term hiccup.

We are very bullish, though, on the stock market. While there’s a ton of uncertainty out there, the time to be invested is now!

We’ve got major problems that are scaring big investors away. As they check off boxes in 2021, they’ll return with their deep pockets, but prices could be much higher.

Apart from a black swan event, which we personally can’t foresee (of course, no one can, by definition), there aren’t many bearish catalysts we can see.

Here are things that can cause volatility, fear, panic, and sell-offs going into 2021:

  1. A government shutdown due to the inability to pass a budget, stimulus bill, or both.
  2. Strain mutations, which present fears that the vaccines won’t be effective or that some forms of the virus could be deadly.
  3. An eviction crisis, as there are roughly $60bn-$70bn due in rents and the stimulus package covers only $20bn.
  4. Real estate prices freezing.
  5. High unemployment for long periods.
  6. A disappointing earnings season in Q1.
  7. Biden’s tougher stance with Russia.

The biggest catalyst is the Georgia Senate election, which could put Democrats over the top and give them full control (a blue sweep if Biden is sworn in).

This will lead to speculation about excessive spending, a giant deficit, socialism, tax hikes, and who knows what else…

For now, let’s focus on Trump and on his ultimatum on Section 230 and its removal, which he attempted to tie with military funding and now with the $2,000 stimulus checks. Whether you voted for him or not, this strategy is certainly a genius negotiation tactic.

What the markets want to see is compromise, but the Democrats’ strategy might be to wait it out until early January, when Mike Pence has to count the electoral votes in Congress, and January 20th if there’s a formal transfer of power.

The $900bn bill is dead, in our opinion. President Trump wouldn’t call it a disgrace and ineffective on national TV only to ink it a few days later.

Will Congress be able to negotiate a new one in time? There are many moving parts; blood is in the streets for Main Street!

The post NO SACRED COWS: TRUMP SECTION 230 ULTIMATUM! first appeared on SHTF Plan – When It Hits The Fan, Don’t Say We Didn’t Warn You.

Share
Categories
agorism anarchist anarchy counter economics Cryptocurrency free market Intelwars Podcasts sal mayweather

Episode-2794- Sal Mayweather on Counter Economics

Sal Mayweather is a practicing counter-economist, crypto-anarchist, & dedicated Rothbardian. He is the host The Agora podcast, publisher of The New Libertarian blog & CEO of Agoristics. Sal is an increadible guy, he is the host of “The Agora” his Continue reading →

The post Episode-2794- Sal Mayweather on Counter Economics first appeared on The Survival Podcast.

Share
Categories
Activists Adam Smith Big tech Censorship dissent Dollars Donald Trump Fiat free market free speech Government Hate speech Headline News Intelwars Morality principles Shut-down silenced socialist taxation Theft Youtube

There Is A Solution To Big Tech Censorship – But No Politician Will Touch It

This article was originally published by Brandon Smith at Alt-Market.us. 

The issue of censorship by major tech companies is a precarious one, and I’m becoming increasingly suspicious of the nature of the debate. There are some complexities, but it can all be boiled down to this:

Big tech social media conglomerates argue that their websites are like any other private business and that they are protected from overt government interference by the US constitution. In other words, they have a right to platform or de-platform anyone they choose. Of course, this is the exact OPPOSITE of what most leftist groups have argued in the past when it comes to private businesses refusing to cooperate with people they disagree with on basic principle, such as LGBT activists, but let’s set that hypocrisy aside for now.

Social media companies have decided that the people they want to de-platform most are conservatives, along with anyone else who disagrees with hard-left ideologies such as social justice or the handling of the pandemic situation. Statements or content that run contrary to leftist philosophies are simply labeled “hate speech” or “conspiracy theory” and are erased.

Conservatives argue that big tech is a monopoly with far too much power, that social media should be treated more like a public resource or “town square” and that these companies are violating the free speech rights of conservatives by specifically targeting them for censorship. Many conservatives are also demanding that Donald Trump and the government step in to regulate or punish such companies for these actions.

The truth is that both sides are right, and both sides are wrong. The real solution to the problem requires a radical change in how we view the institution of corporations and how they interact with government, and it’s a solution I doubt ANY political official will consider, and that includes Trump.

Let me explain…

Social media and big tech do in fact represent a monopoly, but not in terms most people are familiar with. Instead of acting only as an economic monopoly controlling market share, big tech is also a political monopoly controlling the majority of communication platforms. If only one political and social ideological group dominates every major social media and digital information outlet, this in my view represents a completely unbalanced power dynamic that does indeed threaten the free speech rights of the populace.

Rabid censorship of the Hunter Biden laptop scandal, a scandal that is supported by facts and evidence that big tech has chosen to bury because it’s inconvenient to them rather than a violation of their community guidelines, is just one more example of the incredible danger that social media monopolies present.

Obviously, there is the issue of private property rights to consider. I fully support and defend private property rights and I do believe that a business has the freedom to refuse service to anyone for any reason. Just because you open your doors to the public does not mean the public now owns your labor. You should have the right to refuse labor whenever you wish.

If a business refuses a customer based merely on personal bias, then word is going to get around quickly and that business may lose a large number of potential buyers in the future (this is happening right now with multiple alternative social media companies on the rise). The free market should determine the fate of that business, not state or federal governments.

Government itself is an untrustworthy entity that craves a monopoly of power, and by handing government the authority to micromanage the policies and internal practices of web companies we might be trading the big tech monster for an even more dangerous governmental monster.

Who is to say that the government will stop with sites like Facebook or Twitter or Google? Maybe they will exploit their newfound powers to go after smaller websites as well. Maybe they will attempt to micromanage the entire internet. Maybe they will start dominating and restricting conservative websites instead of the leftist conglomerates we intended, and then we will be doubly screwed.

If you value freedom and the Bill of Rights, then this debate leaves us at an impasse. Both sides (perhaps conveniently) lead to a totalitarian outcome. The thing is, the publicly presented argument is a contrived one, a manipulated discussion that only presents two sides when there are more options to consider. The narrative is fixed, it is a farce.

The public has been led to believe that government and corporations are separate tools that can be used to keep each side in check. This is a lie. Big government and big corporations have always worked together while pretending to be disconnected, and this needs to stop if we are to ever defuse the political time bomb we now face.

To solve the social media censorship debacle we need to examine the very roots of corporations as entities. First, corporations as we know them today are a relatively new phenomenon. Adam Smith described the concept of a corporation as a “joint-stock company” in his treatise ‘The Wealth Of Nations’, and stood against them as a threat to free-market economics. He specifically outlined their history of monopoly and failure, and criticized their habit of avoiding responsibility for mistakes and crimes.

Joint-stock companies were chartered by governments and given special protections from risk, as well as protection from civil litigation (lawsuits). But, they were supposed to be temporary business entities, not perpetual business entities. The point was to allow for the creation of a joint-stock company to finish a particular job, such as building a railroad, and once the job was finished the company was dissolved and the government protections were no longer needed. Smith knew that if corporations were ever allowed to become permanent fixtures in an economy, they would result in disaster.

This is exactly what happened in 1886 when the Supreme Court allowed companies like Southern Pacific Railroad to use the 14th Amendment, which was supposed to protect the constitutional rights of newly freed slaves, as a loophole to declare corporations as “legal persons” with all the protections of an individual citizen. Not only that, but with limited liability, corporations actually became super-citizens with protections far beyond normal individuals. Corporations became the preeminent force in the world and it was their relationship with governments that made this possible.

This fact completely debunks today’s notion of what constitutes free markets. Corporations ARE NOT free market structures. They are, in fact, government-chartered and government-protected monopolies. They are SOCIALIST creations, not free-market creations, and therefore they should not exist in a free market society at all.

The alternative option to corporations was for businesses to form “partnerships”, which did not enjoy protection from government, limited liability or the ability to form monopolies. When the owners of a partnership committed a crime, they could be personally held liable for that crime. When a corporation commits a crime, only the company as a vaporous faceless entity can be punished. This is why it is very rare to see company CEOs face prosecution no matter how egregious and catastrophic their actions.

Today, certain corporations continue to enjoy government protections while also enjoying government welfare. Meaning, these companies get a legal shield while also basking in the advantage of tax incentives and taxpayer dollars.

For example, Google (Alphabet and YouTube) has long received huge tax breaks and is rarely if ever forced to pay in full for the massive bandwidth the company uses. In fact, YouTube was facing bandwidth affordability issues until it was purchased by Alphabet and Google, then it no longer had to worry about it – Google gets over 21 times more bandwidth than it actually pays for because of government intervention.

The same rules apply to companies like Twitter, Facebook, Netflix, Apple, etc. All of them enjoy extensive tax breaks as well as cheap bandwidth that makes it impossible for small and medium-sized businesses to compete, even if they operate on a superior model or have superior ideas. Many times the corporations pay no taxes whatsoever while smaller businesses are crippled by overt payments.

A truly free market requires competition as a rule, but the current system deliberately crushes the competition. Again, we live in a socialist framework, not a free market framework.

Now that we understand the nature of big tech and what these companies actually are (creations of government), the debate on social media censorship changes.

How? Take for example the fact that public universities in the US are not legally allowed to interfere with free speech rights because many of them survive by consuming taxpayer dollars. They are PUBLIC institutions, not private. Why then are we treating major corporations that survive on endless taxpayer infusions and incentives as if they are private businesses? They are not – They are publicly funded structures chartered by the government and therefore they should be subject to the same rules on free speech that universities are required to follow.

Said corporations will surely argue against this and will attempt to use legal chicanery to maintain their monopolies. Trying to dismantle them could take decades, and there are no guarantees that government officials will even make the attempt? Why would they? The relationship between government and corporations has been an advantageous one for establishment elites for decades.

Instead of challenging the corporate model in the Supreme Court, an easier option would be to simply take away all welfare and tax incentives for any big tech companies that refuse to allow free speech on their platforms. If Google had to pay normal price for the bandwidth it uses, the corporation would either implode or it would be forced to break apart into multiple smaller companies that would then compete with each other. More competition means lower prices for consumers along with better products. The threat of losing tax incentives would mean more large companies would refrain from censorship.

Donald Trump as president could conceivably make this happen, but he will not, and neither will any other political official. The partnership between government and corporations will continue, I believe because there are other agendas at play here. The establishment WANTS the public to argue in favor of tech totalitarianism on one side and in favor of government totalitarianism on the other side. They aren’t going to allow any other solutions to enter the discussion.

The only available strategy left for fighting back against big tech is to continue leaving their platforms and building our own. This will take many years to accomplish. The point is, there is a more permanent option, but it requires a complete deconstruction of the socialist government/corporate framework now in place. To confront the power dynamic between governments and major conglomerates is to confront one of the fundamental sources of corruption within our society, which is why it won’t be allowed. And when the system refuses to police itself, public upheaval becomes inevitable.

The post There Is A Solution To Big Tech Censorship – But No Politician Will Touch It first appeared on SHTF Plan – When It Hits The Fan, Don't Say We Didn't Warn You.

Share
Categories
Bailouts Capitalism Censorship Civil Liberties control Corporations Donald Trump elitists Emotions Federal feelings free market free speech freedom google Government Headline News Intelwars private property Public Service Racists Reddit silenced Socialism state Twitch tyranny victims Woke Youtube

The Purge: The Natural Progression Of “Woke” Censorship Is Tyranny

This article was originally published by Brandon Smith at Alt-Market. 

As I have noted in the past, in order to be a conservative one has to stick to certain principles. For example, you have to stand against big government and state intrusions into individual lives, you have to support our constitutional framework and defend civil liberties, and you also have to uphold the rights of private property. Websites are indeed private property, as much as a person’s home is private property. There is no such thing as free speech rights in another person’s home, and there is no such thing as free speech rights on a website.

That said, there are some exceptions. When a corporation or a collective of corporations holds a monopoly over a certain form of communication, then legal questions come into play when they try to censor the viewpoints of an entire group of people. Corporations exist due to government-sponsored charters; they are creations of government and enjoy certain legal protections through government, such as limited liability and corporate personhood. Corporations are a product of socialism, not free-market capitalism; and when they become monopolies, they are subject to regulation and possible demarcation.

Many corporations have also received extensive government bailouts (taxpayer money) and corporate welfare. Google and Facebook, for example, rake in billions in state and federal subsidies over the course of a few years.   Google doesn’t even pay for the massive bandwidth it uses.  So, it is not outlandish to suggest that if a company receives the full protection of government from the legal realm to the financial realm then they fall under the category of public service. If they are allowed to continue to monopolize communication while also being coddled by the government as “too big to fail”, then they become a public menace instead.

This is not to say that I support the idea of nationalization. On the contrary, the disasters of socialism cannot be cured with even more socialism. However, monopolies are a poison to free markets and to free speech and must be deconstructed or abolished.

Beyond corporate monopolies, there is also the danger of ideological monopolies. Consider this – The vast majority of silicon valley companies that control the lion’s share of social media platforms are run by extreme political leftists and globalists that are openly hostile to conservative and moderate values.

Case in point: Three of the largest platforms on the internet – Reddit, Twitch, and YouTube just acted simultaneously in a single day to shut down tens of thousands of forums, streamers and video channels, the majority of which espouse conservative arguments which the media refers to as “hate speech”.

To be sure, at least a few of the outlets shut down probably argue from a position of race superiority.  However, I keep seeing the mainstream media making accusations that all the people being silenced right now deserve it due to “racism” and “calls for violence”, and I have yet to see them offer a single piece of evidence supporting any of these claims.

A recent article from the hyper-leftist Salon is a perfect example of the hypocrisy and madness of the social justice left in action. It’s titled ‘Twitch, YouTube And Reddit Punished Trump And Other Racists – And That’s A Great Thing For Freedom’. Here are a few excerpts with my commentary:

Salon: “Freedom is impossible for everyone when viewpoints prevail that dehumanize anyone. And it appears that several big social media platforms agree, judging from recent bans or suspensions of racist accounts across YouTube, Twitch, and Reddit.”

My Response

Freedom cannot be taken away by another person’s viewpoint. Every individual has complete control over whether or not they “feel” marginalized and no amount of disapproval can silence a person unless they allow it to. If you are weak-minded or weak-willed, then grow a backbone instead of expecting the rest of the world to stay quiet and keep you comfortable.

Remember when the political left was the bastion of the free speech debate against the censorship of the religious right? Well, now the leftists have a religion (or cult) of their own and they have changed their minds on the importance of open dialogue.

Salon: “For those who are dehumanized — whether by racism, sexism, classism, ableism, anti-LGBTQ sentiment or any other prejudices — their voices are diminished or outright silenced, and in the process, they lose their ability to fully participate in our democracy. We all need to live in a society where hate is discouraged, discredited, and whenever possible scrubbed out completely from our discourse. This doesn’t mean we should label all ideas as hateful simply because we disagree with them; to do that runs afoul of President Dwight Eisenhower’s famous statement, “In a democracy debate is the breath of life”. When actual hate enters the dialogue, however, it acts as a toxic smoke in the air of debate, suffocating some voices and weakening the rest.”

My Response

Where do I begin with this steaming pile of woke nonsense? First, it’s impossible to be “dehumanized” by another person’s opinion of you. If they are wrong, or an idiot, then their opinion carries no weight and should be ignored. Your value is not determined by their opinion. No one can be “silenced” by another person’s viewpoint unless they allow themselves to be silenced. If they are right about you and are telling you something you don’t want to hear, then that is your problem, not theirs. No one in this world is entitled to protection from other people’s opinions. Period.

It should not surprise anyone though that leftists are actively attempting to silence all dissent while accusing conservatives of stifling free speech. This is what they do; they play the victim while they seek to victimize. They have no principles. They do not care about being right, they only care about “winning”.

Under the 1st Amendment, ALL speech is protected, including what leftists arbitrarily label “hate speech”. Unless you are knowingly defaming a specific person or threatening specific violence against a specific person, your rights are protected. Interpreting broad speech as a “threat” because of how it might make certain people feel simply will not hold up in a court of law. Or at least, it should not hold up…

Political leftists have declared themselves the arbiters of what constitutes “hate speech”, the problem is they see EVERYTHING that is conservative as racist, sexist, misogynistic, etc. No human being or group of human beings is pure enough or objective enough to sit in judgment of what encompasses fair or acceptable speech. Therefore, all speech must be allowed in order to avoid tyranny.

If an idea is unjust, then, by all means, the political left has every right to counter it with their own ideas and arguments. “Scrubbing” all opposing ideas from the public discourse is unacceptable, and this is exactly what the social justice movement is attempting to do. If you want to erase these ideas from your own home or your personal website, then you are perfectly within your rights to do so, but you DO NOT have the right to assert a monopoly on speech and the political narrative.

Generally, when a group of zealots is trying to erase opposing ideals from the discussion, it usually means their own ideals don’t hold up to scrutiny. If your ideology is so pure and correct in its form, there should be no need to trick the masses into accepting it by scrubbing the internet.

Finally, America was not founded as a democracy, we are a republic, and with good reason. A democracy is a tyranny by the majority; a collectivist hell where power is centralized into the hands of whoever can con 51% of the population to their side. Marxists and communists love the idea of “democracy” and speak about it often because they think they are keenly equipped to manipulate the masses and form a majority. But, in a republic, individual rights are protected REGARDLESS of what the majority happens to believe at any given time, and this includes the right to free speech.

In the same breath, Solon pretends to value free discussion, then calls for the destruction of free speech and opposing ideas in the name of protecting people’s thin-skinned sensitivities. In other words, free speech is good, unless it’s a viewpoint they don’t like, then it becomes hate speech and must be suppressed.

Solon: “Reddit referred Salon to a statement explaining,”We committed to closing the gap between our values and our policies to explicitly address hate” and that “ultimately, it’s our responsibility to support our communities by taking stronger action against those who try to weaponize parts of Reddit against other people.””

My Response

In other words, they don’t like conservatives using their platforms against them, and since the political left is unable to present any valid arguments to defend their beliefs and they are losing the culture war, they are going for broke and seeking to erase all conservatives from their platforms instead. The “hate speech” excuse is merely a false rationale.  Social justice warriors stand on top of a dung heap and pretend it’s the moral high ground.

Solon: “No one who understands Constitutional law can argue that these corporate decisions violate the First Amendment which only protects speech from government repression. Professor Rick Hasen at the University of California, Irvine Law School told Salon by email that “private companies running websites are not subject to being sued for violating the First Amendment. The companies are private actors who can include whatever content they want unless there is a law preventing them from doing so.”

My Response

Again, this is not entirely true. Corporations are constructs of government and receive special privileges from government. If corporations form a monopoly over a certain form of communication and they attempt to censor all opposing views from that platform then they can be broken up by government to prevent destruction of the marketplace. Also, government can rescind the limited liability and corporate personhood of these companies as punishment for violating the public trust. And finally, any company that relies on taxpayer dollars or special tax break incentives to survive can and should have those dollars taken away when attempting to assert a monopoly.

Yes, there are alternative platforms for people to go to, but what is to stop leftist/globalist monopolies from buying up every other social media and standard media platform (as they have been doing for the past decade)? What is to stop leftist/globalist interests from using the “hate speech” argument to put pressure on ALL other web platforms including service and domain providers to cancel conservatives?

Finally, just because something is technically legal does not necessarily make it right. Corporations exploit government protection, yet claim they are not subject to government regulation? The left hates corporate America, yet they happily defend corporations when they are censoring conservatives? This is insane.

The Salon author then goes on a blathering diatribe about how he was once a victim of racism (all SJWs measure personal value according to how much more victimized someone is compared to others). His claims are irrelevant to the argument at hand, then he continues…

Salon: “Trump threatening to use the government power to retaliate against those companies, on the other hand, is a threat to both the letter and the spirit of the First Amendment. He and his supporters are not being stopped from disseminating their views on other platforms…”

My Response

Here is the only area where I partially agree with Salon. All of my readers know I do not put any faith in Donald Trump to do the right thing, mostly because of the elitists he surrounds himself within his cabinet. When it comes down to it, Trump will act in THEIR best interests, not in the public’s best interests. Giving him (or the FCC) the power to dictate speech rules on the internet is a bad idea. Also, for those that think the election process still matters, what if we gift such powers to the government today and then the political left enters the White House tomorrow? Yikes! Then we’ll have no room to complain as they will most certainly flip-flop and use government power to silence their opposition.

Of course, if the roles were reversed and corporations were deplatforming thousands of social justice forums and videos, the leftists would be screaming bloody murder about “corporate censorship” and “discrimination”. For now, in their minds, racial discrimination = bad. Political discrimination = good.

The monopoly issue still stands, though, and an ideological monopoly coupled with a unified corporate monopoly is a monstrosity that cannot be tolerated.  Government can and should break up such monopolies without going down the rabbit hole of nationalization.

Yes, we can go to small startup platforms and leave Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, YouTube, etc. behind. I have been saying for years that conservatives with the capital should start their own alternative social media. In fact, that is exactly what is finally happening. There has been a mass exodus of users from mainstream websites lately. I say, let the SJWs have their echo chambers and maybe these companies will collapse. Get Woke Go Broke still applies.

But, government can no longer protect these corporations, either.  With the government raining down bailout cash and corporate welfare on media companies, voting with your feet and your wallet does not have the same effect or send the same message.

The future of this situation is bleak. I have no doubt that leftists and globalists will attempt to purge ALL conservative discussion from the internet, to the point of attempting to shut down private conservative websites through service providers.  The final outcome of the purge is predictable:  Civil war; an issue I will be discussing in my next article.

Leftists accuse conservatives of hate, but social justice adherents seem to hate almost everything. I don’t think I’ve ever witnessed a group of people more obsessed with visiting misery on others, and they will never be satisfied or satiated. That which is normal speech today will be labeled as hate speech tomorrow.  The cult must continue to justify its own existence.   I for one am not going to live my life walking on eggshells around a clique of narcissistic sociopaths. Cancel culture is mob rule, and mob rule is at its core the true evil here; far more evil than any mere words spoken by any “white supremacist” on any forum or video ever.

Share
Categories
banksters Bitcoin central banking Compliance control Cryptocurrency Digital Currency elitists End the Fed enslavement Federal Reserve free market Headline News Intelwars leave leave the matrix LIES New World Order no more control POVERTY rejection rigged SLAVERY Society system Transactions United States

Do NOT Fall For It: Centralized Digital Currencies Will Only Enslave You Further

The solution to the dollar’s demise being parroted by mainstream media and governments is a centralized digital currency.  Don’t fall for it! The real solution is to move completely away from centralized banking and into a fully free market if we ever expect to have the chains fastened around our necks by the elites released.

We have been under the control of the Federal Reserve, the United States’ central bank for over a century. During that time, the U.S. has descended into communism as the free market was systematically decimated to help the wealthy elitists while leaving the slaves poor, destitute, and dependent on that very system.  Instating a digital centralized currency won’t be better either, in fact, it could very well be worse.

If you don’t know how the Federal Reserve works and how it has been used to enslave the public for over 100 years:

Centralization has been the problem in our society, and should never be looked at as a solution to itself. In fact, even Market Watch has reported that central bank digital currencies would ‘increase the government’s grip on money’ with few benefits for the rest of us.  If this ever happens, and people participate in a centralized digital currency, expect the government to be able to take what they want, when they want, and deny transactions for any reason.

This is why central bankers hate Bitcoin. They cannot control it, because it’s decentralized, they cannot stop or force transactions, they cannot take Bitcoin from you when they want, and they cannot see who is making the transactions. They have no control, and they know it, which is why regulations have been futile. That’s the way to a free market system.

The entire NWO comes back to the Federal Reserve, and the pricks who own it, and therefore think they own everyone on Earth.

It All Comes Back To The Federal Reserve: The NWO Is Being Shoved Down Our Throats

If you haven’t figured this out yet and made plans to exit the central banking system (which is rigged, controlled, and set up to steal your money while enriching those who own it), you may get a really rude awakening when they force a digital currency on us all.  If you accept a centralized digital currency, know that they will own you. If you are upset with your degree of slavery now, just wait…it’s going it much more ugly as they roll out these new currencies.

Everyone keeps asking what the solution is. It’s simple, but most don’t want to hear it.  The system requires your compliance to function. Remove that. Go to decentralized systems. Barter, Bitcoin, precious metals, etc. Stop participating as much as you can and break free from the Matrix.  The elitists need a good percentage of people to comply to enslave everyone, and once you figure it out and your mind is free, you will understand that removal from the system, while sometimes painful because it’s all you’ve ever known, is the only solution.

They will not set you free. You must free yourself. You are the hero you’ve been waiting for.

Robert Kiyosaki: What The Elites Don’t Want You To Know

Share
Categories
adolf hitler Capitalism Compliance control disobey elitists enslavement fear mongering free market freedom Gestapo government failed Headline News human rights innovation Intelwars LIES pandemic power Regulations Self-ownership slave stand up Statistics Truth tyranny

Tyranny Ends When We Say It Does, and That Time Is NOW With The Free Market

The totalitarians want us locked in our homes. They want us to not question them and mindlessly comply with the commands.  It’s not about health, it’s about control.  We have more power than we think and we can end it tyranny now and solve the pandemic at the same time.

The truth is, we can end their control over us right now.  We just have to stop complying with it.  We need to allow the free market to make more solutions to this virus as governments have failed epically.

This will get easier too, as more cops and military members refuse to force the elitists’ commands on us. As this movement grows, government power will erode. The sad truth is that we locked ourselves down by complying with tyranny. We did it to ourselves.  But the good news is that it’s easily reversed by disobeying and living free.

Stop giving the mainstream media your time. Stop letting them take your livelihood. Stop asking permission to feed your family. When you free your mind and escape the mental prison the media and the government have put around you, you will be able to more clearly see exactly what’s going on.

Land of the Free? Home of the Brave?

They lied to us. They told us to live in fear in our homes and most of us complied. Until now. People are finally realizing that they don’t have live as slaves to the government or elitists, and cops are figuring out that their forcing of these human rights violations is putting them on the same side of history as Adolf Hitler’s Gestapo.

The Establishment Doesn’t Fear Trump, And It Doesn’t Fear Bernie. It Fears You.

The best way to fight the pandemic is by voluntary action, not government force. The Foundation for Economic Freedom wrote:

It’s important to recognize how the private market has already stepped up to provide much-needed goods and services, and in a more efficient and cost-effective manner than the government ever could. And all without overly aggressive and unconstitutional government mandates. –FEE

Sadly, a lot of Americans have bowed to government and further enslaved themselves while demanding others comply with their enslavement too.  But others have opened their eyes to the disaster that is government and why you should never let another human have power over your life.  Innovation and the free market and free people will be able to handle the next pandemic much better than any government and their totalitarian polices could ever contrive.

One of the first products US stores ran short of after the crisis broke was hand sanitizer. In response, several large international distilleries began shifting production to alcohol-based hand gels instead of whiskey. According to Ann Mukherjee, a regional director for the North American division of Pernod Ricard SA, “I say to everyone on my team that a time of crisis is not what builds your character, it’s what reveals it.” –FEE

The current situation has shown both the ingenuity of the free market and the harmfulness of many government burdens placed on private industry.

Disobeying is going to become a way of life until no politician is left with any more power than any other person. Some people will remain blinded and submit to their slavery, but they won’t be able to enslave others with them. Once you are free, there is no going back. We can beat the pandemic and we can be free. And both of these can happen simultaneously the moment we realize it and the moment we go about our lives disregarding the immoral commands of the ruling class.

Share
Categories
Coronavirus Coronavirus america Coronavirus panic Coronavirus us COVID-19 free market Intelwars Rice University Students Ventilator Ventilators

Rice University team develops a low-cost ventilator for coronavirus pandemic —  it only costs $300

A team from Rice University has developed a low-cost ventilator that could help with the global coronavirus pandemic, and it only costs about $300 to manufacture.

Rice students used 3D technology to create a prototype last year, but because of the coronavirus pandemic, they joined with a Canadian company to develop a more robust version.

A typical ventilator used to treat coronavirus patients costs about $10,000.

Amy Kavalewitz, executive director of the engineering department, explained to KHOU-11 that the low-cost ventilator would be an option for non-critical patients.

“The immediate goal is a device that works well enough to keep non-critical COVID-19 patients stable and frees up larger ventilators for more critical patients,” said Kavalewitz.

“This project appeals to our ingenuity, it’s a Rice-based project and it’s for all of humanity,” said Dr. Rohith Malya, who saw the need first-hand for automated bag valve masks at hospitals in Thailand.

“We’re on an urgent timescale,” she added. “We decided to throw it all on the table and see how far we go.”

The team is making the plans for the low-cost ventilators available for free online for anyone in the world to use.

The Department of Defense has expressed interest in the project.

Here’s more about the amazing development:


Rice University develops $300 ventilator

www.youtube.com

Share