Futurism is, in my view, the key to all modern authoritarianism. It’s a philosophy that has been present at the birth of nearly every major despotic government in recent memory and it’s the root of leftist ideology today. Futurists argue that history is, for the most part, dead weight. They believe that every notion of heritage, the lessons of the past, the ideals and principles of our forefathers are all irrelevant.

Futurists think nothing is sacred and all new ideas are superior to all old ideas. Therefore, they claim, any society that clings to (or conserves) the old ways needs to be dismantled because it is holding humanity back from progress. In other words, anyone promoting or defending traditional norms must be silenced in the name of “progress.”

I suspect most people reading this at least intuitively understand the monstrous nature of this belief system. The very structure of futurism is based on a lie – The idea that all change is good and that any oppression committed in the name of change is justified.

The Process Of Tyranny

In this process of tyranny there are usually stages of escalation. The first stage is the exploitation of existing social divisions to create an enemy that the rest of the population can be convinced to rally against. This is not to say these divisions aren’t legitimate, they often are. In our era of “multiculturalism” globalists have been inviting many groups of people into the west that are simply incompatible with western values and morals. They will not assimilate and they will only cause conflict, which is the very reason why political puppets continue to keep our borders open.

These divisions can be exploited to create conflict and chaos, which is then used by governments as an excuse to crack down on their political enemies. In the US and EU it’s conservatives, the very people that are trying to defend the historical ideals of our respective nations, that are being labeled public enemy #1. We are the ever present bogeyman of the 21^st Century.

It’s not only because we defend the heritage and principles that helped to create the greatest civilization in the history of the world (western civilization). It’s also because because we keep talking about uncomfortable truths.

The futurists rely on disinformation in order to spread their Utopian philosophy and they can only continue to survive by silencing all other contrary ideas. All futurist regimes eventually turn to mass censorship in order to function. They cannot stand in the light of truth, so they must keep the people in perpetual darkness.

Slow At First, Then All At Once…

There are many readers who will argue that we’ve been in this stage for decades now. I would argue that we haven’t seen anything yet. We’ve only been living under covert censorship. The pandemic lockdown effort was the moment of the shift when Democrats and Big Tech companies began to openly demand that counter-information be suppressed. Though, most of that censorship was still under the table.

Meta CEO and Facebook creator Mark Zuckerberg recently admitted that the Biden Administration pressured Facebook behind the scenes to censor Covid-19 information that was contrary to the government narrative.  This is highly unconstitutional and criminal.  Biden and Harris should be up on impeachment charges and, in my view, anyone involved should face prison time.  Will that happen?  Probably not.

This brand of censorship is insidious, but rigging algorithms to hide search results or booting people off of social media is not exactly the same as creating laws to intimidate or punish those that speak out. That’s the stage we’re entering right now; the open mass censorship era has arrived.

In Brazil, leftist authoritarians have shut down Elon Musk’s X (formerly Twitter) because Musk has refused to institute their censorship model on his social media site. To Musk’s credit, he has been willing to lose Brazil’s business and stand by his principles.

The developments in the UK are another blatant example, with the government now trying to hunt down and imprison people for the most minor of actions (a British teen was recently put in prison for two years for merely flying a British flag near a Mosque). Anyone who stands against multiculturalism (and futurism) risks being arrested and thrown in a cage.

UK authorities have suggested that Elon Musk should be charged and that other Americans should be extradited for promoting conservative values on immigration or arguing in favor of British protests. We’re just pointing out that there’s only two ways this can go: Either the British people rebel and violently overthrow the globalist puppets in their own government, or, they will become slaves living in fear within their own country.

It sounds truly insane; all of this drama over basic free speech rights, but this is the world we are now approaching and leftists are happily supporting the transition.

Mass Censorship Is A Path To Inevitable Rebellion

Musk has stated that he believes X will eventually be shut down in the US should Kamala Harris gain the presidency in the November election, and I’m inclined to agree. Look at what the establishment did to social media newcomer Parler when they started gaining traction; the elites simply shut down their ability to function efficiently on the web grow their user base. Under a Harris regime they will feel emboldened to go even further.

The rhetoric of the Democrats is quite clear – They are anti-free speech and they view certain ideas as a threat to our THEIR society.

For example, the far-left New York Times published an article this week that gave credence to mass censorship, including the Brazilian government’s decision on X. They highlight the positives of giving Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes sweeping online censorship powers. They described this move as an ‘effective solution to the vexing problem of right-wing threats to Democracy.’

They fall just short of institutionally endorsing the censorship of X and even ask if Brazil perhaps “went too far” (obviously the answer is yes), but at the same time they suggest that this trend is a “new normal” that Big Tech companies will have to navigate. And, their article insinuates that if Musk wants to counter government censorship demands he should do it through civil courts instead of defying such tyranny directly. In other words, they argue Musk doesn’t have the right to stand against them.

Frankly, a rebellion doesn’t need to ask for permission to rebel.

The New York Times also had a lot to say about the problem of freedom and the US Constitution in an article titled ‘The Constitution Is Sacred. Is It Also Dangerous?’ They again try to tie the events of January 6^th to the necessity of censorship, promoting the false narrative of an attempted “insurrection” in which no one was armed and no one was killed (except one of the conservative protesters).

The Times asserts that the danger of the constitution is that it gives the public the freedom to vote for a person like Trump. An act which they claim allows for the document’s own destruction.

The true irony is that Trump’s popularity would be non-existent if it wasn’t for the political left’s constant attempts to institute a socialist dystopia that erases the Bill of Rights. Nothing happens in a vacuum and these people never take responsibility for their own behavior. They spent three years ignoring the constitution in the name of medical authoritarianism over a virus with a tiny median Infection Fatality Rate of only 0.23%. Then they started gaslighting the public about how conservatives are a threat to democracy.

I argue this is not the new normal, it’s a recipe for war in the US, Europe, or both. Globalists know full well that rebellion is coming but I don’t think most leftists truly appreciate how at risk they are if they continue down this path.  It’s not going to go well for them.

Rebellion is ALWAYS on the minds of the elites. In a way, they want it, but they want it in small doses that are easy to manage. They want a “terrorist” enemy they can use to frighten the public into supporting martial law, but what happens if too many in the public join that rebellion?

What globalists and leftists are truly afraid of is large scale rebellion that they can’t control. The kind of rebellion that could end with the elites on the chopping block. They will do anything to avoid widespread revolution which is why they’re willing to take the risk of open mass censorship today. They know what is coming and they’re moving to mitigate the spread of anti-globalist views as much as possible before things get out of hand. I believe it’s too late for them.

If you would like to support the work that Alt-Market does while also receiving content on advanced tactics for defeating the globalist agenda, subscribe to our exclusive newsletter The Wild Bunch Dispatch.  Learn more about it HERE.

Whenever scientific dictatorship is envisioned by fiction writers the end result is usually very similar to already existing socialist regimes.  Soviet doctrine and the ideals of the Third Reich were inspired by Karl Marx; meaning, both regimes were built on far-left philosophies.  Progressives today often maliciously associate Nazis with conservative thought, but both Adolph Hitler and Benito Mussolini were avid followers of Marx.  As Hitler noted on January 27, 1934, in an interview with Hanns Johst in Frankforter Volksblatt:

“National Socialism derives from each of the two camps the pure idea that characterizes it, national resolution from bourgeois tradition; vital, creative socialism from the teachings of Marxism. Volksgemeinschaft: that means a community of all productive labor, that means the oneness of all vital interests, that means overcoming bourgeois privatism and the unionized, mechanically organized masses, that means unconditionally equating the individual fate and the nation, the individual and the Volk…”

Hitler presented himself as a Christian patriot to win over the German public as they faced economic and moral degradation during the unchecked liberalism of the 1920s, but in private he was not a fan of the religion.  Hitler is noted by Albert Speer as saying:

“You see, it’s been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn’t we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion [Islam] too would have been more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?”

In fact, finding and defining a “conservative” totalitarian regime is almost impossible in modern times.  Without the defense of free markets, individual liberty, meritocracy and a healthy respect for constitutional fairness one cannot call himself conservative.  The Nazis were no more conservative than Neo-Conservatives are conservative, they are simply leftists that pursue ultimate power using nationalism as a proxy instead of pure globalism.

How the “right wing” was culturally associated with authoritarianism is all thanks to modern Hollywood.  The same people that write endless tales of Nazi horror have long ignored the even greater genocides of communism in the Soviet Union, China and elsewhere.  And, whenever a modern dictatorship is portrayed in art or film it is usually tied somehow to a conservative (and often Christian) takeover of society.

This brings us to a little film called V For Vendetta released in 2006, and it brings us to the tyranny now accelerating in the UK.

V For Vendetta is based on the graphic novel by the same name written by Alan Moore (picture below), a talented British scribe but also known by many in the comics industry as a leftist and communist.  Moore’s take on an Orwellian government dominating Britain was decidedly anti-conservative, to no one’s surprise.

The film, directed by the Wachowski Brothers (creators of The Matrix and now both claiming to be “trans women” pictured below), took the anti-conservative view from the comic to even greater extremes with an underlying LGBT propaganda message.  V depicts a British government gripped by authoritarian Christian zealots bent on rounding up and exterminating gay people (and anyone else they deem unfit).  They use an engineered pandemic crisis to frighten the English population and seize power (sound familiar?), establishing a relentless police state run by sexual degenerates that saturates media with disinformation to keep the public docile.

Another film with a similar theme is Children Of Men (release the same year as V for Vendetta), which uses the UK as a backdrop to showcase the steady decline of humanity after a pandemic ends our ability to have children.  The authoritarian government in that tale is dominated by white Brits who round up migrants and place them in concentration camps, and of course a migrant woman ends up being the key to solving the question of infertility.

While most people can relate to the struggle against totalitarianism, the intolerable fallacy being perpetuated is that when the jackboots finally march on the western world they will do so in the name of conservative values and religion.  Well, the dystopian nightmare has arrived in the UK, and the truth is quite the opposite.

The British public is being culturally diminished through forced mass immigration to which the government offers no redress.  UK authorities are far-left in their ideology and promote globalism as the system which Brits must accept without question.  And, those same establishment elites have joined with third-world migrants and Islamic militants to terrorize the population into submission.

Today, UK police are out in force threatening to arrest anyone remotely critical of open immigration or UK migrant policies.  They have also doubled down on the two-tier policing that caused the patriot protests and riots to begin with.  These are not scenes from V For Vendetta, these are scenes from the UK this week:

Make no mistakes, they are coming after @elonmusk's X for giving political dissidents like @TRobinsonNewEra a platform for free speech!

Ed Balls interviews his wife and UK Home Secretary Yvette Cooper on ITV.pic.twitter.com/IMvkECCcli

— Jonathan Wong (@WGthink) August 5, 2024

#UK Police not only want to censor their own citizens, they want to censor those "outside the country," posting about it.

It'd be a shame if everyone mocked them, and kept posting anyway.

P.S. They don't have the resources to extradite everyone, nor enough prison cells. pic.twitter.com/3EBXKR05a6

— Emergent Perspective (@_emergent_) August 9, 2024

The UK police have never spoken like this before. It’s like they’re trying to antagonise tens of millions of peaceful sensible Brits who simply want a conversation.pic.twitter.com/TNRgSpG1Da

— Concerned Citizen (@BGatesIsaPyscho) August 11, 2024

UK authorities have now made multiples arrests dealing with social media posts and opinions as well as arresting people who were merely spectators at various protests.  They are also searching for ways to take down their political opponents, with leftist politicians using MI6 to investigate Nigel Farage for “financial ties” to Tommy Robinson and Russia.  It’s expected that adjacent leftist governments around the world will be following the UK’s example.

Is the far-left really oblivious to their own natural tendencies towards tyranny?  Or, is all the media depicting a conservative run dystopia really a form of gaslighting?  A means to demonize the very people the elites have long sought to erase from history?

When rebellion against this trend explodes (and it will), many great speeches on liberty similar to those spoken in so many pieces of predictive entertainment will not be spoken by leftists and they won’t apply to leftists.  Leftists are not the freedom fighters they imagine themselves to be.  They are, in fact, the villains of the story.

For the record, this publication adamantly opposes such moves. Many frame it as a privacy issue. We see it as a tool for near-future tyranny. Once installed, it is inevitable that this type of technology will be widely and grossly abused by both public and private entities for the sake of their “greater good.” With that said, here’s Joel R. McConvey from Biometric Update…

Transit officials in Los Angeles have declared a public safety emergency over the stabbing of a 66-year-old woman in the city’s Metro transit system, and are planning to deploy facial recognition tools to help identify repeat offenders and deter violent crime, according to reports from the Los Angeles Times and Los Angeles Daily News.

Beatings, stabbings and other violent incidents have been rising on L.A.’s public buses and trains, including four attacks in April. The perpetrator of the stabbing attack that killed Mirna Soza Arauz had a prior ban from the transit system for violent altercations. But Metro says its officers had no way of knowing that a dangerous individual was riding the train. Had facial recognition systems been in place, they might have made the match.

Calling Soza Arauz’s death “a shot across the bow,” the Metro board has given unanimous support to a motion asking the CEO to report back in two months on the feasibility of facial recognition deployments on buses and trains.

The situation is being framed in the direst of terms by those who initiated the request. “Our agency has grappled with a very real and unacceptable level of violence, illicit drug use sales and overdoses, and a blatant disregard for the law, our code of conduct and, quite frankly, basic human decency,” says board member and Los Angeles County Supervisor Kathryn Barger. “Until we completely reverse security reality on our system, I’m concerned that we will never come back.”

FRT payments common but security use cases come with privacy concerns

Facial recognition and other biometric systems have been trialed or installed in transit systems around the world, most often for payments. Deployments in Moscow, Mumbai, Shanghai and Indonesia have differed in scale, modality and approach. For security purposes, Bogota deployed facial recognition software from Corsight AI for real-time surveillance of the city’s TransMilenio system, which resulted in six arrests. And Sao Paolo outfitted its 3-Red subway line with face biometrics and object detection systems that trigger alerts for security operators.

One place that transit riders will not be able to use facial recognition to pay for their rides any time soon is New York City. Gothamist reports on a new law that requires the Metropolitan Transportation Authority to “not use, or arrange for the use, of biometric identifying technology, including but not limited to facial recognition technology, to enforce rules relating to the payment of fares.”

Cautious approach to facial recognition depends on perspective

Academia has typically recommended a cautious approach to using facial recognition for law enforcement in public spaces – although that caution takes different forms and focuses. An article in the Cambridge Law Journal from December 2023 advocates for an incremental approach to regulating the technology. Per the abstract, “by analyzing legislative instruments, judicial decisions, deployment practices of UK law enforcement authorities, various procedural and policy documents, as well as available safeguards, the article suggests incremental adjustments to the existing legal framework instead of sweeping regulatory change.”

Other voices in the debate, however, argue that advances in facial recognition technology are outpacing laws and regulations, and that a swift, comprehensive response should be the government’s primary concern. In a new report entitled “Facial Recognition Technology: Current Capabilities, Future Prospects, and Governance,” the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine “recommends consideration of federal legislation and an executive order” on facial recognition tools.

“An outright ban on all FRT under any condition is not practically achievable, may not necessarily be desirable to all, and is in any event an implausible policy, but restrictions or other regulations are appropriate for particular use cases and contexts,” says the report. “In light of the fact that FRT has the potential for mass surveillance of the population, courts and legislatures will need to consider the implications for constitutional protections related to surveillance, such as due process and search and seizure thresholds and free speech and assembly rights.”

Meanwhile, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights has launched an investigation into facial recognition and its use by American federal agencies.

Both institutions are not only plainly anti-democratic but also inherently authoritarian. The central banker says, “Free markets cannot be trusted to direct the flow of goods and services, so a small collection of experts must be empowered to manipulate markets at their discretion.”

The spy agency says, “Free peoples cannot be trusted to make wise decisions based upon available information, so a small collection of experts must be empowered to manipulate what the public knows.”

In both instances, freedom is diminished. Adam Smith’s “invisible hand” of the marketplace is replaced with a banker’s gloved fist. Self-government is superseded by a national security surveillance State. A small caste of people exercise enormous power over everyone else.

Should real free markets ever return to the West, future commentators will surely look back at this era and wonder how sensible people could have mistaken their economies for anything but command-and-control enterprises. “The institutions controlling their markets were literally called ‘central banks,’” they will scoff.

We will appear quite gullible. Perhaps the biggest “tell” that we have been living under the mere illusion of free markets is the uncomfortable truth that the central banks of closed communist nations are scarcely distinguishable from those purporting to undergird capitalism. Both use their powers to choose economic winners and losers.

As with all human-devised schemes that ultimately betray their stated purpose, centralized control over the supply of monetary currency has been sold to the public as a necessary contrivance for the “collective good.” In this way, free peoples have handed authority over markets to a cabal of bankers who promise to maintain invaluable safeguards against economic volatility, unemployment, inflation, and poverty (even when these goals contradict one another).

Just as with mice and men, the best laid plans of central bankers often go awry. On the other hand, if their plan is to create periodic inflationary bubbles that allow wealthy investors to artificially grow the value of their assets before collapsing the economy, destroying middle-class workers’ life savings, and buying up bankrupt businesses for pennies on the dollar, then the central bankers get it right every time.

In the United States, the privately owned central bank known as the Federal Reserve provided so much stability (sarcasm alert!) that within two decades of its creation, its centralized management of the economy helped usher in the Great Depression. Instead of recognizing the social cost of that economic crisis as demonstrable evidence that central banks cannot prevent catastrophe, or worse, actually facilitate catastrophe, the Federal Reserve used its own failures to further justify its continued existence. Without us, things would have been so much worse! Where have we heard that excuse recently? Oh, right, it’s what the Centers for Disease Control, the Food and Drug Administration, and pharmaceutical bigwigs keep saying about their experimental “vaccines.” Birds of a feather scam the public together, after all.

The worst part of central bank tyranny is that it has destroyed sound money and private savings. In every country, a similar story has played out. First, people trade goods and services using some form of precious metal as a medium of exchange because gold and silver have historically retained their value over time. Next, a government mints coins made from those metals in order to promote lucrative trade. Then, inherently worthless paper currencies are introduced that are backed by the government’s promise that they may be redeemed for gold or silver at any time.

Finally, after people are accustomed to using paper currency, its tether to gold and silver is cut. So long as people continue to participate under the delusion that paper currencies have innate value, central banks and governments can print more worthless notes whenever bankers or governments need money. Inflation is the inevitable result. Whereas a person who earns an income in gold coins can store that gold and find that the value of his labor remains the same fifty years later, a person who earns an income in paper banknotes will find that the value of his savings (his stored labor) has evaporated. Central banks have destroyed sound money, middle-class savings, self-sufficiency, and private property.

What they have created is a government money tree that uses central bank inflation to steal from the public in order to finance the military infrastructure, policy preferences, and bureaucratic armies of the State. Espionage agencies — with their black budgets and covert mission directives — should be aberrations for any free society. Instead, central bank funny money ensures that they are well funded and independent operators whether the public wishes them to exist or not.

In every society, two monopolistic drives exist — one that seeks control over wealth and another that seeks control over information. Eventually, these monopolistic forces combine in order to maximize their power over ordinary citizens. Markets, after all, react to publicly released information, and spy agencies are only as robust as their operating budgets. It should be no surprise, then, that former intelligence operatives fill the ranks of not only defense contractors and weapons manufacturers, but also of news corporations, social media powerhouses, pharmaceutical companies, and global investment banks.

There is a symbiotic relationship between those who possess secret knowledge and those who generate wealth. Just as central banks manipulate the supply of money for profit, spies manipulate the supply of information for profit, too. Companies that track and data-mine our private information are in the espionage business. Intelligence agencies that warp public knowledge for institutional gain are in the business of destroying democratic republics.

Unfortunately, the mother lode of profitable surveillance-gathering lies just up ahead: central bank digital currencies. If governments are permitted to foist CBDCs upon the public, the unholy marriage between central banks and espionage agencies will be complete. In a world where money is created at the stroke of a key and private transactions are tracked in real time, there will be no such thing as private property, let alone real privacy.

However, there is a corollary to this emerging nightmare of total financial surveillance: the reintroduction of sound money based in gold and silver will support not only a return of free markets, but also a return of relative privacy. In order to curtail the tyranny of central banks and espionage agencies, ordinary citizens must starve the State. The easiest way to do so is to reject funny money for good.

If we were trying to explain to an enslaved society what freedom entails, we might say that free peoples own the fruits of their labor, communicate without external constraints, and trade among themselves according to their wants and needs. Free markets, private property, and free speech are the bedrock of any free society. We would not, however, describe freedom as a condition in which property rights are heavily regulated, trade is heavily supervised, labor is heavily taxed, monetary currencies are heavily inflated, or information is heavily censored. Enslaved societies are already intimately familiar with these attributes because they are the essential constraints burdening anyone living in bondage. If an enslaved people were trying to explain to us why anyone would ever choose to live in a state of bondage, they might say that most enslaved people don’t realize that they’re already living as slaves.

Central bank manipulation of money turns free citizens into debt slaves and finances the national security architecture that keeps them permanently chained.

In short, the Nelson family have been targeted for complete financial destruction. Seizures have been made. Threats continue incessantly. All the while, no charges have been filed and all of the evidence points to the Nelsons being innocent.

It’s important to note that we’re only seeing one side of this story. Amazon has not responded to requests for comment. However, a local news story corroborates much of what Nelson explains in her Twitter thread.

Here is the blood-boiling scenario as told by Nelson herself:

(These docs are all on the public docket in Amazon's civil case against my husband, where a federal judge ruled in April that my husband – even if he did exactly what Amazon said he did – acted in accordance with the "explicit terms" of AMAZON's contract.) /2

— Amy Nelson (@Amy_K_Nelson) January 5, 2024

And then, 2 days later – Amazon's lawyer had the AUDACITY to email DOJ & say, hey, need you on the phone again! I want to tell you Amazon's position on the "timing" of the investigation & seizure we ordered up.

This is a real email, from a private attorney.

/4 pic.twitter.com/44s4qlgHjc

— Amy Nelson (@Amy_K_Nelson) January 5, 2024

Amazon alleged a crime of private sector honest services fraud – meaning, Amazon had to prove that my. husband violated his duty to them as an employee.

SO AMAZON LIED ABOUT THE DUTY. They said my husband wasn't authorized to do biz w/ entities doing biz w/ Amazon /6 pic.twitter.com/8UK8Ps2Eop

— Amy Nelson (@Amy_K_Nelson) January 5, 2024

So, yeah.

Amazon got DOJ to seize $7 million over an alleged breach of employment duties – that were false, not real, and actually contrary to the exact duties Amazon had in their own contract.

DOJ also obtained and executed search warrants with these false duties listed. /8

— Amy Nelson (@Amy_K_Nelson) January 5, 2024

So if DOJ didn't rely in "any way" on the employment contract as the alleged source of "fiduciary duty" my husband allegedly criminally violated … what did they look at?

Can Amazon allow something in a contract and then try to put an American in prison for it? /10

— Amy Nelson (@Amy_K_Nelson) January 5, 2024

Amazon's entire mission to "get" my husband was one of seek and destroy at any cost.

Me, my husband & our 4 girls endured civil forfeiture for 2 years, a terrifying FBI raid, and months of threats from prosecutors to arrest my husband in our home in front of our girls. /12

— Amy Nelson (@Amy_K_Nelson) January 5, 2024

Last year, Amazon's lawyer sent me a letter telling me if I didn't stop my "unlawful" social media posts sharing the names of lawyers hunting my family for Amazon that he would go to the court. He also called me a conspiracy theorist.

I didn't stop. Nor will I. /14

— Amy Nelson (@Amy_K_Nelson) January 5, 2024

The media is terrified of this story. I get it. Everyone in the world is terrified of @JeffBezos. But we have the receipts because these lawyers were so damn sure we'd collapse and die so no one would ever see the paper trail.

And the paper trail is sloppy and horrifying. /16

— Amy Nelson (@Amy_K_Nelson) January 5, 2024

Patrick Stokes, Elizabeth Papez, Jason Mendro, Claudia Barrett, Michael Dziuban, Amanda Sterling, Veronica Moye, George Hazel, Lora MacDonald, Travis Andrews, Rachel Robertson, Thomas Hungar, Jason Schwartz, David Casazza, Trisha Parikh, Luke Sullivan, Cate Harding, /18

— Amy Nelson (@Amy_K_Nelson) January 5, 2024

Internal Amazon lawyers: David Zapolsky, Dennis Wallace, Yousri Omar, D. Matthew Doden, Alexis Collins, Brad Elias, Sarah Tyerman, Marnina Cherkin. Those are the names I know currently, as identified by Amazon. /20

— Amy Nelson (@Amy_K_Nelson) January 5, 2024

And there is more: Like, why did DOJ prosecutors threaten to charge my husband with obstruction of justice or witness tampering if he refused to stop defending himself in Amazon's civil case?

I mean, weird? /22https://t.co/VxRmaBwaMW

— Amy Nelson (@Amy_K_Nelson) January 5, 2024

Please share our story with ANYONE you know who might help.

We've spent over $3 million legal fees. We've lost our home, car, retirement, & more.

No one deserves this. Someone could do the right thing today. Including @ajassy, @DavidZapolsky or @JeffBezos /24

— Amy Nelson (@Amy_K_Nelson) January 5, 2024

And, finally. Why do I name the lawyers?

People do things to people. We need to remember that. Companies can't make decisions – people do. Law firms can't scorch the earth of their targets – only people can.

We are all responsible for our decisions and actions. Always. /26

— Amy Nelson (@Amy_K_Nelson) January 5, 2024

I will be interviewing Nelson soon and will post it when it’s live.

“I want to be a dictator for one day,” proudly declared former President Donald Trump to the New York Young Republican Club on December 9, 2023. Two hundred and forty years earlier on December 23, 1783, General George Washington humbly informed Congress that he did not want to be a dictator – not even for one moment. That day is when the victorious commander-in-chief willingly gave up power at the end of the American Revolution.

Washington returning his military commission to Congress is probably the most important event in American history. It upheld the Revolution’s promise to establish free government by the consent of the governed and ensured the survival of the United States as we know it.

History is filled with tales of conquering generals turned dictators like Julius Caesar, Oliver Cromwell, and Napoleon Bonaparte. Washington was unique. Unfortunately, unlike July 4, 1776, the date December 23, 1783 isn’t ingrained in the minds of many Americans. Yet, especially given recent talk of an American Caesar (whether Red or Blue), it should be. Washington made dictatorship un-American.

It didn’t have to go this way. Two years after the 1781 victory at Yorktown, things were falling apart. A weak and dysfunctional Congress was broke. The undersupplied Continental Army hadn’t been paid in years. As a result, a rumored officers’ coup potentially threatened the nation with a military dictatorship, or at least the destruction of civil-military relations. By June 1783, resentful soldiers encircled Independence Hall (the birthplace of the Declaration of Independence) with bayonets drawn. The mutiny drove Congress from the capital of Philadelphia.

Across the Atlantic, King George III wondered if Washington would assume power. British Commander-in-Chief General Guy Carleton was convinced that in America “a Monarchy must of necessity take place.” Closer to home, Continental Army officer Lewis Nicola had even previously written to Washington about “the title of king.”

Given the context, Washington’s actions were even more profound. As he headed to Annapolis, Maryland, where the Congress had fled after the Philadelphia mutiny, Washington was not crossing the Rubicon. The only thing on the general’s mind was his “intention of asking leave to resign [to Congress] the Commission I have the honor of holding in their Service.” Since June 19, 1775, when he was first commissioned by Congress as commander-in-chief of the Continental Army, the Virginian had affirmed the supremacy of civilian government. Whether he was fighting campaigns, facing cabals to remove him, pulling his officers back from launching a conspiracy, or suppressing a mutiny, he never forgot that he served Congress and the people.

At noon on December 23, Washington entered the packed Old Senate Chamber in the Maryland State House for his “solemn resignation.” Onlookers jostled for position on the floor, as the upstairs gallery overflowed with the city’s most prominent ladies. With his head uncovered, Washington bowed before Congress – who were all seated with their hats still on – in a display of civilian supremacy.

Overcome with emotion, Washington’s “voice faltered and sunk” as he thanked Congress for the “trust committed to” him and spoke of his love for “the Interests of our dearest Country.” Before concluding, he needed to pause and collect himself, “I here offer my Commission, and take my leave of all the employments of public life.” The room burst into tears.

Washington’s surrender was so rare it stunned the world and helped label the U.S. as “a respectable Nation.” Giving up power was “so new in the present times, or rather unknown,” gushed Polish poet Julian Niemcewicz. You had to go back to Roman General Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus surrendering his sword in 458 BC to find a comparable example. And even then Cincinnatus was a dictator – even if it was just for 16 days – before he gave up power and returned to his plow.

Perhaps the most fitting testimony came from a recent enemy, George III who simply called Washington “the greatest man in the world” for his resignation.

The world indeed watched with awe. But Washington’s act became even more venerated as others could not follow his example. The South American “Liberator” Simón Bolívar overthrew Spanish rule but assumed dictatorial powers in Peru and Venezuela. Haitian revolutionary Jean-Jacques Dessalines freed his island before being made emperor by his generals. Napoleon Bonaparte effectively destroyed the ideals of the French Revolution when he crowned himself emperor. In exile, a bitter and defeated Napoleon muttered, “They wanted me to be another Washington.” But it’s not easy being another Washington. His legacy isn’t based on accumulating power – it’s about giving it up for the good of the nation.

Accepting Washington’s commission in Annapolis, Congressional President Thomas Mifflin hoped this example would “continue to animate remotest ages.” It did. General Washington set a precedent for the peaceful transition of power that was expanded and reaffirmed when the unanimously elected President Washington left office after only two terms – when he could have retained the office for life.

Today you can visit a painting of Washington’s resignation by Revolutionary War veteran John Trumbull in the Rotunda of the U.S. Capitol. It stands as a symbol that in America, dictatorship (for any length of time, whether one day or “4Eva”) has been utterly rejected for 240 years and counting.

So in the hustle and bustle of this most wonderful time of the year, take a moment to remember the greatest moment in American history, “the greatest man” George Washington and his greatest gift – the gift that keeps on giving.

Craig Bruce Smith is a member of the Jack Miller Center’s teaching network and the author of “American Honor: The Creation of the Nation’s Ideals During the Revolutionary Era.” Follow him on social media at @craigbrucesmith. For more, visit www.craigbrucesmith.com. All views are the author’s. 

If you were to examine the entire spectrum of globalist policies and programs from the US to Europe to Asia, including climate controls and carbon credits, central bank digital currencies (CBDCs), cashless societies, vaccine passports, biometrics, agricultural controls, the “Great Reset,” the Fourth Industrial Revolution, AI monitoring of transactions, etc. you will come to the same conclusion I have – Almost everything they do revolves around locking down and micromanaging trade and access to resources.

Not just international trade and the import/export of resources, but ALL trade including the average person’s grocery purchases and private barter. If they get their way you won’t even be allowed to grow a garden in your backyard. Think I’m exaggerating? Just look at what happened during the attempted covid lockdowns – There were leftist state governments trying to deny people access to jobs and food without vaccination status, and at least one (Michigan) tried to stop people from buying garden seeds.

In many places (including Hawaii), they tried to arrest people simply for being outside in parks and beaches. Keep in mind, it is nearly impossible to contract or transmit a virus in the outdoors where open air and sunlight actively kill diseases. Yet, the science was completely ignored in order to control people’s behavioral patterns, social interactions and economic participation.

I have long argued that one of the primary purposes of the covid lockdowns was to acclimate the public to the idea of rationing – The government takeover of production and consumption as a means to bottleneck trade. Rationing erases any last vestiges of the free market and turns the buying of necessities into a privilege instead of a right. It was also an attempt to demonize the concept of prepping as a form of “hoarding.” In other words, if you planned ahead and bought food and medical supplies years in advance, you were a selfish person withholding valuable goods from others in dire need.

I think the chaotic flurry of activity during 2020 and 2021 had a lot of people confused; many have forgotten how incredibly close we came to full authoritarianism, including total economic tyranny.

The purpose of economic controls is obvious: If you control people’s access to supplies and income then they are far less likely to rebel against you when you turn the screws and take their freedoms. This has been the strategy of every communist/socialist regime around the world since the 20^th Century, and was a mainstay of feudal empires in the Middle Ages. The process of trade controls is at the core of the agenda of our modern day oligarchy – Ruling at the barrel of a gun is not as viable a strategy today (at least for now), so, they are opting to used indirect methods to gain compliance until the population can be completely disarmed.

This trend forces the liberty minded to adopt alternative economic systems. If we do not, then we will not be able to maintain our ability to fight back against authoritarianism. If you can’t feed yourself, then you can’t fight. But what would these alternative systems look like?

Essentially, they would be black markets. Study the tactics of gun runners and drug dealers of the past several decades and the alternative economy of the future will probably look similar, though on a much larger scale. Most of what we do will eventually be treated as illicit unless it is specifically sanctioned by local or state governments, but this will not stop centralized authorities from doing everything they can to shut down private production and trade.

Then there is the issue of economic collapse, which we are already beginning to experience in the form of a stagflation crisis. Trust me, it’s going to get a lot worse in the next couple of years, so establishing alternatives today should be our top priority. If your currency is consistently losing value, prices are rising and you have to work harder everyday to attain the same amount of resources then the end game will be slavery and servitude – Unless you can walk away from the broken economy.

Here are the steps that would be necessary to defeat the socialization of trade, and all of them will require a certain level of risk.

Localized Resource Production And Taking Back The “Commons”

Large groups of people in counties and states will have to organize the extraction of vital resources from areas typically managed by the federal government. Meaning, if your state produces a lot of oil, or timber, or coal, or copper, or steel, etc., then the production will have to focus on domestic markets rather than foreign export. Americans either at the state or county level will need to ignore federal restrictions on resource management that favor large corporations and create a supply chain for domestic use only.

The more groups at the county and state level do this, the larger the resource network will become and the harder it will be for federal or global interests to shut down wider production of goods and services. If you want to bring back an economy of independent producers and tradesman in the US, it all starts with localized resources and the end of access for government protected corporations that siphon wealth out of communities.

Barter Markets

I’ve been writing about the value of barter markets as a means of rebellion for almost 20 years now, and I continue to believe that this tactic is an incredible tool for defeating economic tyranny. The bottom line is this, though: Barter markets need producers in order to stay viable. They need people who make things, grow things, fix things and teach things. It can’t just be about trading goods you already have on hand; you have to be willing to add value to the market by creating useful items and services.

Barter markets can operate on a small neighborhood scale up to a county level, while states can trade with each other to stockpile vital commodities. All of this, though, would have to act as a stopgap because barter relies on an erratic value system – Any item or service is going to be worth something different to each person, making standardized prices difficult. In the end, some kind of universal trade mechanism (currency) will have to be introduced that functions outside the failing dollar system and separate from CBDCs.

Alternative Currency System

Yes, this concept has been discussed at great length from every angle within the liberty movement for years. Most of the talk has revolved around cryptocurrencies, though, which I view as a distraction from legitimate solutions. Almost no one you run into on a daily basis owns or trades crypto; why would they when it is a currency based in virtual reality? People want the option to hold their buying power in their hand, to know that their wealth is tangible.

This means a convertible currency mechanism, either a cryptocurrency or physical note that is backed by a commodity or a basket of commodities that are held in escrow safely and securely. These commodities would have to have storage capacity and be relatively portable; gold, silver and copper, wheat, oil, rice, and so on. A basket averaging out relative values can be used to determine buying power of the new currency.

Of course, such a system would have to be developed at the state level. It’s unlikely that counties and cities will have the resources to create such a system on their own. Though, localized script might become common in smaller towns if they are highly organized. This is an idea that needs to be pursued now, BEFORE an economic collapse and dollar collapse play out.

A “Reset” Of The Tax And Corporate Model

If taxes are to exist at all, they should be limited to the local level and the benefits of those taxes should be readily visible to the local population. Federal income taxes should not exist (they didn’t exist permanently until the formation of the Federal Reserve Bank from 1913-1916). They only serve to feed the authoritarian apparatus and grow government ever larger. Federal operations, if they are to exist at all, should be funded through tariff’s on foreign goods as was the practice in the US decades ago.

Corporate charters should no longer exist. Corporations are a socialist concept given protection and special treatment from governments. They should be replaced by legal partnerships and no longer be treated as “too big to fail.” Also, when business management knowingly commits a crime, they should be prosecuted, not protected by limited liability.

The tax model and the corporate model are both massive drains on the modern economic system. They disrupt the buying power and the production power of the average citizen, thereby keeping entrepreneurs from advancing due to rigged competition and dragging down the consumer with steady wealth depletion.

If we are to save the economy, or build any kind of functional alternative, then these two millstones will have to be removed from our collective necks.

Decentralization Prevents Genocide

The greater issue at hand is what happens when governments and oligarchies are allowed to wield centralized authority over resources.  Usually, the end result is the exploitation of those resources as a weapon to punish part of the population or all of the population until they submit.  Often, genocide is treated as a viable option.

Looking at the communist engineered famines in Soviet Russia or Maoist China, we can see the same elements forming today in the west.  The difference is that we have historic reference and the means to prevent it from happening again.  Make no mistake, there are psychopaths in leadership today that have no qualms whatsoever in using food or economic access as leverage against the people that oppose them.  We saw them try it during covid, and they are going to keep trying under the guise of climate change.

But really, these are only mechanisms for garnering popular acceptance of socialized resources.  “We’re all in this together…right?”  No, we’re not, and the notion of sacrifice for the greater good is a farce created by parasites trying to convince the host that the bloodletting and feeding is “moral” and necessary.  These parasites serve no purpose.  The collectivists serve no purpose.  There are numerous ways for the economy and society to function happily and successfully without them and their centralized agenda.

But to get rid of them we have to first protect ourselves, and establishing a solid alternative trade framework is a major step towards eliminating the parasites forever.

If you would like to support the work that Alt-Market does while also receiving content on advanced tactics for defeating the globalist agenda, subscribe to our exclusive newsletter The Wild Bunch Dispatch.  Learn more about it HERE.

And, of course, governments, when deciding what sort of general behaviour should be tolerated by its citizenry, tend to legislate less for recompense to those whom a citizen may have wronged and more for recompense to the government itself, even if it has not been wronged in the slightest.

Generally speaking, the larger the country, and the older the country, the more extensive the laws.

Of course, in a country that claims to be a democracy, the idea is supposed to be that the will of the people is followed by its elected representatives, which suggests that the people actually have a say in how they are governed – that their government may only impose such laws as the majority agree on.

Well, there’s nothing unusual in that concept. In fact, all contract law is based on the principle that a contract is created that two or more parties agree to. And, with the passage of further laws, the contract would be updated.

However, if I were to ask you to show me a copy of your current contract with your government, I’m guessing that not only could you not produce one, but that it never occurred to you that you should expect one.

That being the case, the only way that we could cobble together a contract would be to list a set of general principles under which you are presently governed. We can use US Law as an example, but much the same laws are common in many other countries.

For the sake of convenience, we shall use the terms “Servant” and “Master” to describe you and your government.

1. The Servant may not leave the Master’s property without permission.

In order to travel outside the US, you are required to present your government-issued, identifying document for approval for you to leave, even briefly. The decision as to whether you may leave is unilaterally for your government to decide.

2. The Servant may not receive income of any kind without disclosure to the Master. 

All income that you receive, whether it be through wages or the sale of goods or services, must be reported to your government.

3. The Servant shall pay a large percentage of all income to the Master. 

The amount taken from you will be determined unilaterally by your Master.

4. The Servant may not own anything that the Master disapproves of. 

The Master shall have the authority to declare any commodity or good unlawful.

5. The Master shall have the authority to fine or imprison the Servant. 

If the Master determines that the Servant has violated any of rules #2-4, he shall be entitled to fine the Servant or lock him in a cage for a period of time to be determined by the Master.

6. The Master shall have the authority to monitor the Servant at all times. 

The Servant’s activities shall be monitored by the Master, through telephone, texts, emails, social media, and other forms of communication.

Of course, these are just the basics, but you get the idea. When looked at in these terms, it becomes difficult to maintain the self-deception that “I live in a democracy. My government exists to serve me, not the other way round.”

Interestingly, in most countries, a contract such as the above does exist under the guise of “Law.” And yet, this is not a contract that the Servant agreed to. It existed before he was born, and he was obligated to adhere to it merely by being born in a given jurisdiction.

Moreover, the Master has the right to change the contract, to the detriment of the Servant, at will and may do so unilaterally. The larger the country, the greater the degree to which the Servant is unable to take part in the discussion as to whether a proposed change in Law has his approval.

Not surprising, then, that the larger the country, the more numerous the laws are likely to be and the more imposing they are likely to be on the Servant.

Still, the relationship of Master and Slave exists most everywhere on the planet, to one degree or another.

And it’s understandable if the reader concludes, “Yeah, well, it’s the same no matter where you go. Whattaya gonna do about it?”

And yet, that’s not exactly true. It’s not the same everywhere.

There are countries, for example, that have no direct taxation of any kind. The individual, therefore, is not required to disclose his income to his government.

Similarly, in countries where there’s no tax on property, the government doesn’t have the power to confiscate property for failure to pay a tax.

Also, there are borders between some countries that are “porous.” Nationality documents are, in some cases, merely waved at border agents and, in some cases, dispensed with entirely.

Most governments declare some items to be illegal, but the First World appears to have a lock on regulating or outlawing virtually every commodity.

And, of course, the monitoring of the populace is quite unequal. The more sophisticated the technology in a country, the greater the surveillance. This does not mean that you have to live in a hut in the jungle to escape surveillance; it means that many countries simply cannot afford to fund or choose not to fund maximum surveillance.

The bad news is that, in any country, we’re enslaved by our government to one degree or another. The good news is that we can, at least at the present, vote with our feet and choose to reside in a location where we have greater autonomy – in some locations, far greater autonomy.

Editor’s Note: Unfortunately, most people have no idea what really happens when a government goes out of control, let alone how to prepare…

The coming economic and political collapse is going to be much worse, much longer, and very different than what we’ve seen in the past.

That’s exactly why New York Times best-selling author Doug Casey and his team just released an urgent guide that will show you exactly how to prepare. Click here to download the PDF now.

(Article cross-posted from Brownstone Institute)

The dirty secret is this: Masks don’t work by controlling the virus. Masks work by controlling the people.

If we’re talking about stopping the spread of the virus, masks simply don’t work.

But if we’re talking about stoking fear, instilling blind obedience to state authorities, sowing discord between citizens, and publicly “outing” skeptics and dissidents – in other words, creating an authoritarian, even totalitarian system of public health – then masks work very well indeed.

MASKS DON’T WORK AT CONTROLLING THE VIRUS

By this late date, it has been established beyond honest scientific doubt that masking is ineffective at stopping the contraction and spread of COVID-19. This is true both at the microscopic level and at the population level.

The early mask mandates regarding COVID-19 were largely “justified” on the assertion that the SARS-CoV-2 virus was not prone to airborne spread. However, the SARS-CoV-2 virus has since been proven to be an airborne virus (like influenza), meaning it can remain circulating in room air for extended periods of time, and spreads in this manner. SARS-CoV-2 viruses have also been proven to be much smaller in size than the holes in cloth and surgical masks.

Therefore, at a microscopic level, Harvey Risch is correct: trying to block the SARS-CoV-2 virus with a surgical mask is quite literally like trying to keep mosquitos out of your yard by erecting a chain-link fence.

At a population level, the latest Cochrane meta-analysis of the available randomized, controlled trials surrounding masking and respiratory viruses concluded that “Wearing masks in the community probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of influenza‐like illness (ILI)/COVID‐19 like illness compared to not wearing masks. Wearing masks in the community probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of laboratory‐confirmed influenza/SARS‐CoV‐2 compared to not wearing masks.”

(It should be noted that as the mask debate has been resurrected, Cochrane has been under intense pressure by pro-mask entities to addend and modify their comments about this study, to which the organization has capitulated.)

Furthermore, this study is only one in addition to the hundreds of other studies that clearly outline the epidemiologic ineffectiveness and real harms of masks, many of which have been known since at least 2021.

To summarize: at the microscopic level, masks do not stop the exit or entry of the virus into human bodies, and at the population level, mask use has not been shown to provide any benefit, and has been shown to have numerous harms.

MASKS DO WORK AT CONTROLLING PEOPLE

The entire Public Health^TM enterprise in the West has a strong political and authoritarian impulse built into it from its very conception. While a detailed review of this is beyond the scope of this article, it harkens back at least to the figure of Rudolf Virchow, the preeminent 19^th century German physician, opponent of Semmelweis and Darwin, and founder of so-called “social medicine,” who famously wrote that “Medicine is a social science, and politics nothing but medicine at a larger scale.”

The attitude that Public Health^TM should possess the power to dictate national and local political policy for the “public good” (as they, the “experts,” unilaterally determine it to be) has increased over the past century, especially in the United States. Around it there have grown vast, lucrative industries, from which (since at least the Bayh-Dole Act), Public Health^TM officials often profit handsomely. The vaccine industry is only the most obvious of these.

During the COVID era, the authoritarianism of Public Health^TM morphed into totalitarian mode, with the unprecedented lockdowns, school closures, travel restrictions, vaccine mandates, etc. that we all endured. The most visible and most easily enforceable symbol of this power grab were masks.

Masks, even the comically useless ones made of old handkerchiefs, or the filthy, week-old paper surgical ones seen on countless chins, signaled compliance and submission. For the very real Public Health^TM purpose of unquestioning obedience, masks work very well indeed.

Masks are effective at instilling fear in people. Fearful people more readily submit to authority, particularly when that authority promises a solution to the cause of their fear.

Masks are effective as virtue signals of compliance, bolstering the submissive person’s ego. Masks also impose a very strong peer-pressure effect, which pushes uncertain persons toward following the crowd.

Masks are effective at humiliating people. They are uncomfortable, ugly, dirty, and unnatural. They truly are “face diapers.” In a word, masks are degrading. If the ways of the old Eastern bloc taught us anything, it is that the systematic degradation of individuals, especially for patently stupid reasons, is highly effective at promoting totalitarian ends.

Masks are also extremely effective in exposing dissidents. Who dares to stand up against the state? There’s one, right over there. Shame on them. Shun them. Arrest them.

That’s how masks really “work”, and that’s why the Public Health^TM types love them.

That’s why they’re trying to bring them back.

Sound off about this article on the End Medical Tyranny Substack.

About the Author

C.J. Baker, M.D. is an internal medicine physician with a quarter century in clinical practice. He has held numerous academic medical appointments, and his work has appeared in many journals, including the Journal of the American Medical Association and the New England Journal of Medicine. From 2012 to 2018 he was Clinical Associate Professor of Medical Humanities and Bioethics at the University of Rochester.

At a time when the Biden regime is trying to imprison President Donald Trump for the rest of his life, Yoder’s story seems particularly poignant.  If the American War for Independence were being fought today, there is no doubt that the D.C. despots squeezing the life out of the American people would enthusiastically take sides with the British.  As soon as dishonest and nefarious lawmakers, police officers, prosecutors, and judges decided to treat the J6 protest against election fraud as an “insurrection,” the miscreants who imperiously occupy D.C. made clear that they have fully rejected both the spirit and the principles of 1776.

If Americans cannot assemble to petition their government for redress of grievances without fear of being labeled “insurrectionists” or “terrorists,” then there is no First Amendment protection remaining.  If the American press corps can stand back and watch this political persecution unfold for years without being bothered to point out the deceitfulness in portraying an unarmed crowd of ordinary citizens as engaging in “rebellion,” then there is no institutional organ outside government extant to fight today’s oppression.  It makes sense that Mr. Yoder would be targeted for especial FBI harassment; if George Washington, Sam Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison were alive today, the FBI would be busy hunting them down, too.  Liz Cheney, Adam Schiff, Merrick Garland, and Mitt Romney would be calling them “traitors.”  And the news media would be breathlessly reporting about how our Founding Fathers’ fight for liberty is really about their love for slavery and the “patriarchy.”

Joe Biden joins Russia’s Putin, Nicaragua’s Ortega, Venezuela’s Maduro, Brazil’s Lula, China’s Xi, Iran’s Khamenei, and Turkey’s Erdoğan as another twenty-first-century tyrant with no qualms about locking up his political opponents.  There was a time when both the elected officers and the entrenched bureaucracy in the United States would have universally condemned foreign leaders for their efforts to undermine freedom of speech, dissent, and political self-determination abroad; now it is the United States that follows the example of the world’s worst authoritarians.  And just as every brutal dictator proclaims that he faithfully serves “the people,” America’s ruling regime will continue to insist that its illiberal displays of force, rampant censorship, and political targeting are all necessary to “protect our democracy.”

Across language and geography, ruling regimes throughout history have used a strikingly similar label to demonize their political adversaries: “disloyally affected person.”  The British used the term to lock up members of the Irish Republican Army.  Both Lenin and Mao used the phrase to justify mass executions of anti-communists.  Castro’s Secret Police used the alleged offense as an excuse to imprison and torture political opponents in Cuba.  Now the U.S. government throws around this spurious charge — disloyalty to the State — as if dissent against the permanent ruling class were the height of criminal activity.

To Americans with any understanding of their own country’s history, the federal government’s penchant for loyalty oaths and insistence that citizens defer to official authority are deeply disturbing.  America is a nation whose citizens’ rights come from God — not the government — and whose Constitution was written to curb the power of government officials and ensure that the American people retain an upper hand.  It is the army of bureaucrats and political parasites who have shown through their words and actions just how disloyal they are to the foundations of American freedom.

For decades now, the Potomac patricians have breached the plain meaning of the Constitution’s contractual language once binding the American people to their chosen government, yet the ruling regime occupying D.C. criminalizes any objections to its tyranny.  It insists on prosecuting any American who reads from the same inspired scripts of Washington, Adams, Jefferson, and Madison.  It accuses any American who defends his God-given liberties against escalating encroachments of being guilty of “insurrection,” “seditious conspiracy,” and “disloyalty” to the United States.

The Gateway Pundit recently reported that the Stasi-esque FBI created several thousand “playing cards” to “identify and surveil” American citizens after the J6 election protest.  For anyone who remembers how the Pentagon used the exact same method to help service members hunt for Saddam Hussein and his government’s henchmen during the Iraq War, this revelation is horrendously offensive.  Although the federal government and its loyal lapdogs in the press continue to paint the million or so Americans who showed up in D.C. on January 6, 2021, as “terrorists” intent on “overthrowing the United States,” nothing could be further from the truth.  Not only were the vast majority of J6 protesters law-abiding citizens who had never before been arrested, but also a disproportionate percentage had served their country in foreign wars.

Had the unaccountable Deep State not worked so hard to fraudulently frame the J6 election protest as an “insurrection” (much as they framed President Trump as a Russian spy, transformed Biden’s Ukraine bribery scandal into a Trump impeachment, and knowingly deceived the American people by labeling Hunter Biden’s “laptop from Hell” as “Russian disinformation”), the event would have been remembered as the largest gathering of military veterans in years (perhaps that fact is what really scared the ruling class).

How has the U.S. government chosen to thank those veterans for their years of service?  It has spit in the faces of all Americans who put their lives on the line for their nation’s security by slapping the images of veterans on the same playing cards used to overthrow Iraq’s terror State.  When the D.C. Uniparty chooses to “fight terror” by making terrorists of its war-fighters, nobody should be surprised when fewer heroes stand up to defend the government apparatchiks now destroying the United States.  Those heroes will, however, choose to defend America and Americans from tyranny — a distinction that the bloated bureaucracy and D.C. Deep State should appreciate before it is too late.

Glenn Greenwald, one of the few remaining journalists still interested in pursuing truth despite the dangers to his life, says plainly that one of the principal directives of the Deep State is to “control online political speech” and “banish dissent.”  He accuses the Democrat Wing of the Uniparty as being the home of (1) the Intelligence Community, (2) “the union of state and corporate power to censor the internet,” (3) neoconservatives, (4) the “corporate class at the expense of the working class,” and (5) the propagandists engaged in “deranged disinformation campaigns.”  The Biden regime, in other words, sees the American people as threats to the permanent ruling class and de facto “enemies of the State.”

Meanwhile, the Republican Wing of the Uniparty sits back and says little, or worse, it condones the government’s ongoing campaign of intimidation and incarceration.  If Republicans who hold power in D.C. were truly committed to the principles of America’s founding, they would have spent the last three years vehemently condemning the police State’s persecution of J6 protesters, the Deep State’s continued efforts to destroy Donald Trump, and the Biden regime’s portrayal of MAGA voters as “disloyal” Americans.

Instead of erecting a statue in honor of veteran Ashli Babbitt, the Uniparty promotes her killer.  Then, for good measure, it sends a man dressed as President George Washington to prison.  If that doesn’t symbolize the Republic’s impending doom, what does?

Image via Public Domain Pictures.