As we approach the end of the 2022, I wanted to check to see how the Freedom and Reason blog is doing and found that views (and visitors) are down sharply after steady growth in viewership. Freedom and Reason when from almost 10,000 views in 2021 to around 7,500 in 2022. The year is not over, but the trend is clear. The blog cannot make up the number of views it needs to approximate the last two years. Here are the stats provided by WordPress:
I began to suspect something was wrong when searching my past blog entries over the last year in Google (the overwhelming choice of the world public for search engine). There I found that my blogs on the pandemic, deep state machinations with respect to the 2020 election and its aftermath, the color revolution, etc., were not returned (whereas DuckDuckGo was returning them). Even using the advanced search function in Google did not return information on blogs that in fact exist.
When I search Google for information critical of these matters independent of my site url using terms specifically intended to generate criticism of the dominant political and scientistic narrative the search engine returns pages upon pages of sources toeing the line obviously desired by elites. Again, even using Goggle’s advanced search function does not return information and opinion critical of the corporate state line. I have to go directly to websites I know provide that content to find it.
Here’s the problem: there remain many more critical websites I don’t know about because the Google algorithm shadow bans them. If this is true for those other sites, then it must be true for mine, as well. Potential readers across the world will never know that Freedom and Reason exists because Google’s search engine will never provide the url to them. It appears Google got on to me sometimes last year and found my commentary too contrary to the corporate state narrative.
As you may know, Google is the parent company of YouTube. I reported recently that YouTube removed a podcast from Freedom and Reason that concerned the FBI-Twitter cabal that censored Hunter Biden’s laptop and de-platformed users reporting on it. Although this was not the first time YouTube censored my content, in the latest case the content said nothing about the subject matter that YouTube claimed it was censoring the podcast. Even after my appeal was heard staff or algorithm used the same justification. I reposted the podcast on Rumble. However, searching Google for that content does not return the link.
If YouTube is removing content critical of powerful corporate and state actors, then it seems certain that Google is shadow banning websites critical of those forces.
There is an attempt to make those who suspect being stealth banned out to be paranoid. Elaine Moore of the Financial Times writes that “social media influencers are at the mercy of algorithms. This makes them perfect fodder for conspiracy theories. It also makes sense that influencers would be baffled by any sudden decrease in engagement and spooked by changes that might jeopardise the brand deals they sign. Instead of believing that their own popularity is waning, some cling to the idea that shadowbans are a disciplinary measure that is used against creators who do not warrant an outright ban from a platform.”
But media gaslighting and the use of thought-stopping devices like “conspiracy theory” does not explain patterns that become obvious when examining the type of content that is not return by Google’s search engine. It’s obvious that Google’s algorithm is designed to restrict information critical of corporate state agendas.
So do me a favor. If you are familiar with Freedom and Reason or stumble upon this entry, push out my content.
Workers tell pollsters that higher wages and better and more flexible working conditions will bring them back to work. Progressives have a better idea: throw open the borders and declare amnesty for those illegally here. The Democrat leader in the Senate blames working people for not having enough babies, while progressive politicians keep their constituents idled in ghettos where they vote for a living.
I know it confuses a lot of people to see Democrats advocating these policies. Aren’t progressives pro-working class? Don’t they care about marginalized populations? Bad assumptions (failure of objectivity). Progressives are neoliberals. They don’t believe in nation-states. They’re trans-nationalists. This has always been true. They try to disguise it with the rhetoric of cultural pluralism and social justice (presumed noble standpoint). But deceit only works on those devoted to ideology and narrative. The problem is that there are a lot of gullible people—and the elite-controlled communications, cultural, and education systems are making more of them everyday. Big Tech and Big Pharma own our youth.
Meanwhile, the Fed will continue raising interest rates to throw more workers out of work. As Fortune reported Thursday, “stock markets buckled on the growing realization that the Fed is willing to let the economy slide into recession to drive inflation down to its 2 percent annual target.” The Fed forecasts ratcheting up the key rate by an additional three-quarters of a point (from 5 percent to 5.25 percent) and keep it there through next year. Fortune tells its readers that “the higher rates will mean costlier borrowing costs for consumers and companies, ranging from mortgages to auto and business loans.” But it will also mean higher unemployment—and this is the core purpose of the move: to throw workers out of work in order to depress wages and restore rates of surplus value. Few Democrats have come forward to criticize the Fed’s actions.
On a more general note (and this will be the subject of a forthcoming blog), the American republic was essentially over when progressives won the debate with populism at the turn of the last century. Not that they won the debate in any democratic sense. Courts made corporations persons and turned the reins of government over to them. We now live in a corporate state. The direction of the corporate state is towards global neo-feudalism, towards a high-tech serfdom. The Chinese model. The Great Reset. Perhaps it’s not too late to turn things around. But it soon will be.
But it is clearly not a Marxist maneuver. Douglas Murray is so wrong about this—as is Jordan Peterson, James Lindsay, and all the other right-wingers who advance this ridiculous claim that postmodernist-style critical theory is based on the logic of Marxism.
Think about it for only a few moments and you will see why this is a garbage argument. If the point is to divide the majority and disrupt their individualism by defining them in essentialist terms—black, Muslim, gay, gender identity, whatever (while denying sex and obscuring class)—and demanding they pursue the “interests” of group identity rather than their material interests (which is what Murray is arguing in this clip), then how on earth could it be Marxist when the point of Marxism is precisely the opposite!?
The point of Marxism is to break down the identitarian and ideological divisions that disrupt the development of proletarian (majority) consciousness for the sake of a class politics that can effectively challenge bourgeoise power—the actual force engineering the divisive politics of identity. How is the contradiction in Murray’s argument not immediately obvious?
Remember when both the political right and “leftwing” progressives were both—as was BLM itself—characterizing Black Lives Matter as a Marxist thing when in fact it was based on race essentialism and queer theory and bankrolled by corporate power? BLM (and Antifa) is about as far apart from Marxism as a thing can possible be yet self-described leftists just gushed over co-founder Patrisse Cullors describing the nucleus of the organization as “trained Marxists”—right before they took the money and bought big houses and signed exclusive deals with corporations in the culture industry.
Murray spoils a potentially useful point by attributing the effect to the wrong cause. And Murray is a super smart dude. Shit like this just wants to make me give up. I swear.
Transgender athletes in Connecticut and their advocates secured a victory yesterday when an appeals court ruled that the Connecticut Interscholastic Athletic Conference (CIAC) can advance its plan to allow males who identify as transgender girls to compete on female sports teams. (See Transgender athletes score legal victory in Connecticut case.)
Bloomfield High School athletes Terry Miller, second from left, and Andraya Yearwood, far left, compete in the 55-meter dash at the Connecticut girls Class S indoor track meet in New Haven, February 2019. (AP Photo)
A three-judge panel of the 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed that discrimination against transgender students violates Title IX. Passed in 1972, Title IX prohibits educational institutions receiving federal funding from discriminating on the basis of sex.
“Today’s ruling is a critical victory for fairness, equality, and inclusion,” said Joshua Block, a senior staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) who represented the CIAC, five Connecticut school boards, and two former athletes in the case. “This critical victory strikes at the heart of political attacks against transgender youth while helping ensure every young person has the right to play.”
How is this not it for Title IX? If the court interprets the law to mean that it prevents educational institutions that receive federal funding from discriminating based on sex, and therefore males can compete in female sports, then how have we allowed sex-segregated sports all these years? How does this ruling not renders the law incomprehensible? Or effectively nullify it?
Surely this is not what the framers of title IX intended. Wasn’t the law designed to protect girls and women’s rights as girls and women’s right were understood when the law was written, i.e., the rights of human females? Sports are not segregated on the basis of gender identity (a new and problematic construct) but on the basis of genotype, which enjoys the confidence of biological reality.
So let’s reconsider. Title IX bans sex discrimination in higher education. The law states that colleges cannot exclude females from any school activity, including sports. Schools that only offer male teams are therefore out of compliance. So let’s eliminate male-only teams and try out everybody regardless of sex. Those who make the team make the team. Those who don’t don’t. That way, everybody is treated equally and only the best athletes participate.
Let’s make it about the individual. Like we do with race. We don’t have white-only sports teams (anymore). That would be racist. So why do we have male-only teams? Why didn’t Title IX address the obvious problem that sex-exclusive sports teams discriminates on the basis of sex when the law was drafted? Why isn’t that sexism? As civil rights law did on the basis of race, let’s require all sports teams to try out females.
It seems there’s a hidden assumption in all of this. I can’t quite put my finger on it. Sex is only a social construct, right? But I’m not a biologist.
Facebook’s vaccine center, which you are asked to consult every time you look at one of my Facebook posts about vaccines (and there’s a lot of them), now says that the bug that causes COVID-19, coronavirus, is not new at all, and, in fact, this is how scientists were able to develop a vaccine for it so quickly (failing to mention that they engineered this particular one).
This is an interesting admission in light of the fact that we were all told when the powers-that-be rolled out the pandemic that coronavirus was a novel virus. At least that’s what they led us to believe by repeating ad nauseam the phrase “novel coronavirus.” Novel means new and not resembling something formerly known. The phrase is misleading. The media obscured the history of our knowledge about the virus—and casts doubts on the origins of the particular strain.
If you remember back in the spring of 2020, when I started blogging about the pandemic, I told you that the coronavirus is not novel, that scientists had known about its existence at least since the 1930s, and had, in fact, isolated it in the lab in the 1960s. By the end of that decade, scientists had identified three strains of coronavirus, and, by the 1990s, identified the alpha, beta, delta, gamma, etcetera, variants. I also told you that, prior to the identification of coronavirus, scientists had isolated several rhinovirus strains, as well as several adenovirus strains—all this in the 1950s.
Coronavirus, adenovirus, and rhinovirus are causes of the common cold. You and I have had across the life course one or more of these cold viruses (very likely all three). They helped build our immune systems. Indeed, we needed to contract these viruses as kids because they are more dangerous to adults, especially the elderly. The lockdowns interfered with the acquisition of natural immunity. The obvious reason respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) has “returned with a vengeance” is because the lockdowns deprived children of exposure to the virus, leaving their immune systems collectively ill-prepared for a return to normality (such as that is).
If knowing about these viruses for all this time allows the development of vaccines, and if we knew about rhinoviruses and adenoviruses a decade before coronaviruses were isolated, then where is the rhinovirus vaccine or the adenovirus vaccine? Shouldn’t we have had it already? Remember when we joked as kids about finding a cure for the common cold? That the scientist who discovered that would be set for life?
Of course, the truth is that there is no vaccine for any cold virus. There is an mRNA gene therapy that trains cells to produce a dangerous protein called spike (S protein) that causes systematic inflammation in the human body. The mRNA jab does not stop the transmission of coronavirus. It does not keep you from getting sick. In fact, it can make you sick. It does not keep you out of the hospital. In fact, it can put you in the hospital. It does not prevent you from dying from the virus. In fact, it can kill you.
The mRNA technology is now being developed for other viruses. The FDA recently approved the Moderna mRNA RSV vaccine mRNA-1345 for single-dose administration to adults over 60. Stockholders are now directed towards Moderna’s “mRNA vaccine portfolio.” The company’s revenue is expected to top $100 billion in 2022—more than double the pre-pandemic level. Pfizer will also soon have an mRNA RSV vaccine. It is expected these will find their way onto the vaccine schedule for children. Of course they will.
Gullibility and naiveté is a huge problem in the West. It should be obvious that Big Pharma operates the same way other industries do. To be sure, Big Energy generates products that can be helpful. People want to have a warm home in the winter. People want to drive their cars to work. At the same time, the productions of Big Energy are harmful to people. This is true with the chemical industry generally. Chemicals marketed as beneficial for this or that purpose are also carcinogenic and so on. Big Pharma produces a lot of commodities: some are beneficial (but also harmful); some are harmful (and not particularly beneficial).
Big Pharma produces these commodities to generate large and sustainable profits for the shareholders who have buy into their companies. Corporations are legally required (it is the fiduciary responsibility) to put the interests of their shareholders over the interests of the stakeholders, i.e., the public. To legitimize their activities, while appearing to protect the public from dangerous actions and products, regulatory agencies (CDC, FDA, USDA, EPA, etc.) are stood up by governments to stamp commodities as safe and effective. Big Pharma even funds and staffs the agencies charged with regulating them. What corporations don’t control at the outset, they capture later.
Big Pharma depends on professional organizations, such as the American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association, and the America Academy of Pediatrics, and governmental agencies such as the National Institutes of Health, to construct diseases and disorders and the diagnostic criteria that marks them to align with the products marketed by Big Pharma and the Medical-Industrial Complex. These organizations, the regulatory bodies, and the companies comprise the corporate state, what Antonio Gramsci called the “integral state” (some call it the “extended state”).
In the process of establishing hegemony, Gramsci argues, the integral state depends on popular support to secure broader legitimacy. As Max Weber told us before Gramsci, power requires legitimacy to become authority—and domination depends on consent from the dominated. Domination is not a one-way street: authority needs the subaltern to conform to the rules it establishes to secure its interests over against the interests of the subaltern. It requires compliance, and that is most easily secured by making people ignorant and afraid. It needs the masses to not grasp the actual nature of the system (indeed, to be functionally unable to) but rather to put their faith in the system as power defines it, to treat the claims of the corporate state as doctrine to affirm by repeating its prescriptions.
In the post-Fourteenth Amendment world, with the rise of corporate personhood, the government does not exist to protect the public from corporations; the government exists to protect corporations from the public.
Progressivism is the apparent movement ideology legitimizing corporate governance. I say apparent because it is not actually a movement but instead a political-ideology articulated by the professional-managerial strata (the new middle class) established to thwart social movements from challenging corporate power be coopting grievances and neutralizing them.
Jürgen Habermas has pointed out that the nonappearance of democratic socialism (not be confused with social democracy, i.e., corporatism or managed democracy) is the result of the pacification of class conflict by the welfare state that emerged in the post-WWII West. Reformist tendencies, pushed by the middle class, rooted in Keynesian economics, pulling even organized labor into the integral state, replaced radical class-based politics. The rhetoric of the middle class subsumes into that sphere of interests those of the working class. In fact, these classes are directly antagonistic; as the managers of corporate affairs, the interests of middle class are diametrically opposed to those of the proletariat.
Ensconced in the academy, the culture industry, the media, and even the major religious institutions of the West, the new middle class has become something of a priesthood, with progressivism representing something of a religious faith. Hence the appearance of “Woke.” This explains why, if you don’t affirm the importance of vaccinating your children, then you are “antivaxxer” (the secular equivalent of a heretic) or a “science denier” (the secular equivalent of an apostate).
In this context, science becomes scientism, that which the corporate state presents as the only true science, the science it uses to generate patented commodities. Other corporations, especially the legacy and social media, who depends on the advertising dollars of Moderna and Pfizer, dutifully label as disinformation (heresy) the facts that contradict the doctrine and censor and throttle those facts—and restrict and cancel those who deliver those facts to people.
For example, see the case of Twitter and Stanford professor Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, “They Wanted an ‘Illusion of Consensus.’” Governments manufactured a consensus around the “science” of lockdowns and vaccines by working with social media companies to silence scientists and censor science. Expertise didn’t matter. Look at Bhattacharya’s credentials. They censored those who knew what was going on. Just like I told you they were. “Following the science” means actually following the science—not believing what corporate and government and progressive voices tell you is the science.
This is the real reason why Facebook uses the posts on my time-line to push out the propaganda of the pharmaceutical companies that pay its bills.
‘20 mill lives saved from covid vaccines ? This is a modelling study – it’s science fiction, not scientific fact
Times headlined with mild covid linked to heart attacks.The actual research revealed the opposite.
“Now, because of a recent Supreme Court ruling, many of these remaining regulations are in danger of being dismantled. As bad as America’s gun-violence problem is, it could be about to get much worse,” writes Ryan Busse, author of Gunfight: My Battle Against the Industry That Radicalized America, in his Atlantic piece “One Nation Under Guns.” (Busse serves as a senior policy adviser to the gun-safety advocacy groupGiffords)
The argument raises two questions that need answering: (1) does gun regulation prevent gun violence? (2) Does gun deregulation cause gun violence?
The provocative image accompanying Busse’s Atlantic essay.
Taking (2) first, there is no intrinsic connection between deregulation and gun violence. A change in regulation cannot reasonably be supposed to produce in a person a desire to pick up a gun and shoot another person. Indeed, the construct “gun violence” is problematic for this reason. Gun violence is really people acting violently with guns. It’s the same with knife violence or personal violence, i.e., personal weapons, e.g., fists and feet. Guns, knifes, and fists do not themselves cause violence. They are means to end. Yes, even those physically attached to persons (which cannot be reasonably regulated).
As to (1), what is the evidence that regulations of guns prevents (or reduces) violence? It is reasonable to suppose that restricting access to certain means with which to commit violence may reduce to some extent resort to those mean, and, even more, reduce death and injury from violence using these means. However, we need evidence to make a judgment about this. Even then, whether that should affect policy is not a given.
Modern gun control laws came about in my lifetime. As gun control spread city-to-city, state-to-state, over a period of several decades, violent crime rose alongside it, and would continue to rise until the mid-1990s, when states put more cops on the street and judges locked up more violent offenders. The reduction of violent crime, including so-called gun violence, continued until 2014, when it began rising again. This is when the rhetoric of “systemic racism” become widely socialized in American society and criticisms of policing began to change both criminal justice policy and the attitudes and behaviors of police officers (we call this the “Ferguson effect.”
In other words, the rise in violent crime, which will necessarily be accompanied by a rise in the use of guns to commit violent crimes whether guns are regulated or not, began well before the Supreme Court decision about which the author of this essay is concerned.
The focus on guns–like the focus on race–is a distraction in the debate about violence in America. Independent of means, violence in America is the consequence of multiple factors: structural inequality, idled populations, neighborhood conditions, and father-absence. Regulating guns as a solution to criminal violence in America, even if it resulted in some reduction in “gun violence,” cannot be a substitute for tackling the root causes of violence in America. To do this requires reducing inequality, providing jobs, fixing communities, and putting fathers back in the home–and an effective public safety strategy that allows the gains made in these areas to persist over time.
I was finally provided a link to appeal YouTube’s decision to ban my podcast “Twitter and the Deep State.” Soon after submitting my appeal, YouTube got back to me this this:
So they will not restore my content. One must ask, then, was the FBI also meeting weekly with YouTube to prep its team for censoring stories about Hunter Biden’s laptop? Because that’s what my podcast was about. And YouTube has censored it.
The actions of YouTube and other social media platforms are rationalized with the phrase “the control of misinformation,” something with which the Executive Branch and the network of corporations it represents have become obsessed. This phrase is the label for an Orwellian-named strategy to suppress information that contradicts the preferred narrative and undermines mass opinion engineered by the corporate state in support of that narrative. This is the way totalitarian states operate.
I suspect that YouTube also does not want you to know that the FBI colluded with former employee James Baker, a lawyer who had been with Twitter since 2020 until owner Elon Musk fired him over the Hunter Biden laptop coverup, to carry out the objectives of the administration state. Baker served as general council for the FBI from 2014-2018, working alongside Peter Strzok and Lisa Page (I encourage readers to look into doings of these two). Baker has also served as an analyst for CNN.
Baker was a key figure in the FBI’s probe into the allegation that Trump was a Russian asset during the 2016 presidential election. In other words, Baker has been exposed as a deep state actor who worked inside Twitter to arrange for FBI visits to Twitter headquarters to prep Twitter’s “legal, policy, and trust team” to censor the Hunter Biden laptop story. Musk is now indicating that, before leaving, Baker may have gone through the Twitter files to cover up his own role in Hunter Biden laptop affair.
It is almost certainly guaranteed that if I did a podcast on Baker and his role in the coverup and uploaded it to YouTube, the company would remove my content again and I would receive that strike they’re warning me about. This is a dilemma for me: since I use YouTube to host my lectures for my online courses, I cannot risk losing that resource. So I will now be uploading my political content to Rumble in the future: The FAR Podcast.
More revelations are sure to come out concerning the Hunter Biden laptop story, but we know now without any doubt that the administrative state and the national security apparatus work with legacy and social media to label information critical of progressivism and corporate power “misinformation.”
This fact is profound. To posit a separation between the public and the private spheres, between the political and civil societies of American life, is today untenable. The interlinkages between the administrative state and the corporate structure of late capitalism constitute the webbing of the corporate state. The corporate state, if we suppose at the moment is some form of an integral state, only means that we stand on the brink of an open totalitarian situation. For, if the hegemony engineered by the administrative state-corporate power nexus break down, then the only choice for the ruling class is to shift to open totalitarian rule.
As I have said before, following Sheldon Wolin’s thesis, as it stands now, we already live in a situation of inverted totalitarianism (and of course managed democracy). But it could be worse. We could see the end of the alternative networks of information sharing that I have been compelled to utilize.
The reader must grasp the direness of the situation. The liberal arrangements upon which the American republic was founded have been abrogated. The republic as a liberal-democratic constitution-based system is increasingly a fiction. The effect of all this is the end of democracy and personal liberty.
We see the end of liberal democracy not only in the cabal to engineer elections and with the administrative state weaponized in COINTELPRO fashion against conservative groups and other dissidents, but in the case of, for example, pharmaceutical interests, targeting for discrediting those scientists and doctors whose findings potentially hurt corporate profits. The integral state is desperate to shore up the hegemony it constructed decades ago to avoid the totalitarian shift they know risks provoking a popular uprising against the corporate state.
This reality has been made concrete to me. My own reporting on the FBI-Twitter machinations around Hunter Biden’s laptop have been censored by YouTube and they are threatening me with cancellation. In the past, both YouTube and Facebook have censored my podcasts on the COVID-19 pandemic. It’s a pattern that tells me what I never needed a smoking gun to confirm: that powerful interests are suppressing information disruptive to corporate state hegemony.
I’m just a small fry (in part because my accounts have been throttled for years). If corporations micromanage the political expressions of their other customers in the same way (and they do), then it is obvious that the suppression of my work and marginalization of my person is an organized function of the apparatus. How much longer will those who claim to love liberty deny the existence of that apparatus?
The corporate state media is telling you that Herschel Walker’s loss is all Donald Trump’s fault. I’m not going to bother aggregating the headlines here. Just head over to Google news aggregator and you’ll see for yourself. But the gist of it all is this: Trump is over and Walker’s loss was the death blow.
Georgia Democratic Raphael Warnock defeats Republican challenger Herschel Walker in the December 6, 2022 runoff election.
Yes, Trump endorsed Walker. But Trump was not allowed to personally campaign for Herschel Walker in the runoff election. Nor was Marjorie Taylor Greene who, despite what the media tell you, is very popular among populists in Georgia (she won her district in 2022 by two-thirds of the vote). These were the figures Republicans needed to turn out voters on game day. Instead, the Washington establishment—the Republican wing of the donor class, led by Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell—sent Lindsey Graham, senator from South Carolina and Nikki Haley, former governor of South Carolina, to campaign for Walker instead.
What really happened to Walker was the result of the Washington establishment taking over his campaign. The establishment is deeply unpopular among populist Republicans and Independents. Establishment-backed Republican candidates drive down voter turnout on game day because establishment candidates do not generate popular enthusiasm on the conservative right. Moreover, establishment Republicans openly criticized Walker’s candidacy. Key figures acted to suppress voter turnout by emphasizing Walker’s inadequacies rather than explaining to voters the paramount importance of reaching the 50-seat threshold to force Democrats into a power-sharing arrangements in the Senate.
Despite all this, everything out in the open, the corporate state media—the spin machine for the establishment—the same corporate state media that suppressed news about Hunter Biden’s laptop—tells you Herschel Walker lost because of Trump. By blaming Trump for Walker’s loss and further diminishing the president, the spin benefits the establishment wing of the Republican Party because it keeps the party aligned with the interests of the donor class.
The outcome of the 2022 election saves the asses of Joe Biden and other members of the Executive who will almost certainly be impeached by the House Republican majority in the new term. Not because of any chance of conviction (that takes two-thirds of the Senate), but because Senate hearings, if ever called, would not enjoy the status of a majority or power-sharing arrangement. And we can be sure that Senate Democrats lack the love of country to address what ought to be seen as the most significant constitutional crisis in decades. Watergate was penny-ante in shadow of the evidence of alleged crimes found on the Hunter Biden laptop.
YouTube removed the most recent content from The FAR Podcast (presented at the start of the last blog). Why? Because I am not supposed to tell you that the FBI prepped Twitter to censor the Hunter Biden laptop story. Here is the notification.
They provided a link for me to appeal, but when I clicked on it was a URL to nowhere. I tried on different devices. Suffice to say, there is no appeal. At any rate, I re-uploaded the content to Rumble. You should definitely check it out since YouTube doesn’t want you to. Here’s my Rumble page:
Vijaya Gadde, former general counsel and the head of legal, policy, and trust at Twitter, interfered in a US election more than Russia ever did. What was the involvement of the deep state with Twitter’s operations on behalf of the Democratic Party? I’m calling for a new Church committee style hearing and get all the facts on the table. What we will find is that Twitter is just one player, one piece, in a massive plot to rig the 2020 election that involved the FBI, the DOJ, and the DNC. Biden is an illegitimate president. We owe Elon Musk, the new owner of Twitter, a debt of gratitude for bringing Gadde’s deceit into the open.
Vijaya Gadde, former the head of legal, policy, and trust at Twitter
Of course, an angry tweet by Trump is far more important than what angered the president: deep state collusion with social media corporations to rig the 2020 election. (There’s evidence that Twitter interfered with the recent Brazil election. In what other elections did Twitter interfere?) How do I know Trump’s tweet is more important? Because the top story in my Google news aggregator is about the president’s tweet while stories of the smoking gun of deep state-social media collusion do not appear—and this is light of the fact that my search history; if Google’s algorithm functions the way it is said to function, it should organize my news feed to bring stories of my interest to the fore. But this story is buried. Like this blog (Musk doesn’t own Google).
It must deeply hurt progressives to know that Steven K. Bannon and his team—Jack Maxey, Rudolph Giuliani, Bernie Kerik, Raheem Kassam, and Jack Posobiec—were correct about Hunter Biden’s laptop right down the line. The Biden family is a crime family whose scope is global. And while the corporate state media pumped out disinformation about the laptop being a Russian plant, Miranda Devine at the New York Post was one of only a handful of journalist who followed the evidence and told the truth everybody familiar with the evidence knew. For this, Twitter censors the oldest newspaper in US history (founded by James Madison). The outcome of the 2020 election was the result of a massive scheme to confuse the public.
Elon Musk, the New Owner of Twitter
You know who else was correct about all this? Me. To be sure, the entire system is engineered to keep you and me in the dark. If it were not for my expertise as a political sociologist and my curiosity about power it is very likely that all this would get past me moment to moment, and I certainly would not have the wherewithal to have written about it on my blog in real time order the last several years and told folks about it on Facebook, which has, like Twitter, throttled the posts on my feed.
The fact that the corporate media, progressives, and the White House say nothing about a Chinese surveillance application (TikTok) on millions of devices across America, including those watched by children, children who watch content designed to disrupt their normal understandings of the world and turn them against their parents, but are apoplectic over Elon Musk opening up Twitter to more liberal and conservative voices tells you a lot about the character of power in the United States.
Folks are supposed to freak out over Kanye West and his trolling (I disagree with Musk banning West over his posting of the Swastika), but where is the outrage over President Biden rubbing up against Xe Jinping of China, the leader of a totalitarian regime that is welding citizens into their apartments, genociding the Uyghur people, and extracting organs from living Falun Gong? West loses his endorsements, while Hollywood stars travel free of consequences to Ukraine to hug and kiss a known authoritarian, a thug who bans opposition parties and religious organizations he doesn’t like.
Think about it. The illegitimate president of our country is sending tens of billions of dollars to the authoritarian regime running Ukraine. The elites knew who this man—a man adored by Hollywood and the army of cultural snobs—was all along. I told you about him a while ago. Did you read my blog about what this is all about? (See History and Sides-Taking in the Russo-Ukrainian War.)
Folks on Facebook and Twitter adorned their social media platforms with Ukraine flags. Why did they do that? Do you think it’s a coincidence that folks displaying the flags of an authoritarian regime are the same folks sharing pictures of themselves wearing masks and injecting their kids with mRNA? The same folks who characterized liberty-minded folks during the Pandemic as “mouth breathers”? The same people advocating indoctrinating children with crackpot theories? The same people defending mobs attacking people in public spaces, vandalizing monuments, and burning cars and buildings?
We have a very real problem in the West with the authoritarian personality type and it resides on the so-called left. Of course, progressivism isn’t left at all; it’s anti-worker and illiberal. It’s a projection of the corporate state. You know that already if your read Freedom and Reason.
We don’t need smoking guns. Any good scientist is able to observe phenomena and describe and explain how systems behave. Most objects in the universe operate without consciousness. We need not ask frogs and lily pads what they’re thinking about (they don’t think about anything) to describe and explain and predict the future state of an ecosystem. However, when it comes to humans, this basic truth is thrown out the window and objective analyses of human systems are characterized as conspiracy theory—when they run contrary to the preferred narratives of power. Then when the actual proof the powerful demand becomes available, the social controllers bury the news and gas light the public.
Matt Taibbi, formerly of The Rolling Stones, reports on the machinations of Twitter
The corporate state media is silent on investigative reporter Matt Taibbi’s reporting on one of the biggest story of the last several decades. Do what you can to push out the story. The only way to combat corporate suppression of the truth is to put to work people power. You are people power.
* * *
Note: I returned to Trump’s tweet this afternoon and I think we may be misreading. Trump writes: “So, with the revelation of MASSIVE & WIDESPREAD FRAUD & DECEPTION in working closely with Big Tech Companies, the DNC, & the Democrat Party, do you throw the Presidential Election Results of 2020 OUT and declare the RIGHTFUL WINNER, or do you have a NEW ELECTION? A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution. Our great “Founders” did not want, and would not condone, False & Fraudulent Elections!” (I shared Trump message on my Twitter feed. See below.)
Is Trump saying that we should termination of the Constitution because of the widespread problems with the 2020 election? Or is he saying that a fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of the Constitution, in that power permitting elites to perpetrate a fraud this big is power threatening the existence of the Constitution. It sounds a lot like the later, given that’s what he actually wrote, not the interpretation imposed on his message by the corporate state and the propaganda apparatus. When doing textual analysis, it is almost always better to understand meaning in terms of what the author actually wrote than what the reader wishes he had.
freedom and reason 