Boom: Florida Governor Nukes Big Tech Over Censorship

Florida becomes the first state to assert state’s rights by tackling Big Tech head-on over censorship with potentially massive fines and strict regulations. With this encouragement,  other states are sure to follow. This is a must-read story. ⁃ TN Editor

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) announced a major push to curb Big Tech’s political bias and censorship today, with measures including a ban on the censorship of political candidates and mandatory opt-outs of content filters for citizens of the Sunshine State.

In a 45-minute speech, the governor identified Big Tech companies as the leading threat to American democracy and freedom of expression today, and pledged that Florida Republicans would take action.

The new regulations announced by DeSantis include:

  • Mandatory opt-outs from big tech’s content filters, a solution to tech censorship first proposed by Breitbart News in 2018.
  • A private right of action for Floridian citizens against tech companies that violate this condition.
  • Fines of $100,000 per day levied on tech companies that suspend candidates for elected office in Florida from their platforms.
  • Daily fines for any tech company “that uses their content and user-related algorithms to suppress or prioritize the access of any content related to a political candidate or cause on the ballot.”
  • Greater transparency requirements.
  • Disclosure requirements enforced by Florida’s election authorities for tech companies that favor one candidate over another.
  • Power for the Florida attorney general to bring cases against tech companies that violate these conditions under the state’s Unfair and Deceptive Practices Act.

This is the widest and most aggressive range of regulatory and legislative solutions so far proposed by any U.S. state to tackle the problem of tech censorship.

Read full story here…




State Lawmakers Rise Up To Curb Governors’ COVID Powers

State legislators are rising up against dictatorial governors to limit or remove their ability to declare emergencies to impose draconian mandates that cause damage to state citizens and economies. States, counties and cities have immense, untapped power to push back against Technocrat tyranny. ⁃ TN Editor

Irritated by the sweeping use of executive orders during the COVID-19 crisis, state lawmakers around the U.S. are moving to curb the authority of governors and top health officials to impose emergency restrictions such as mask rules and business shutdowns.

The push is underway in such states as Arizona, Michigan, Ohio, Maryland, Kentucky, Indiana and Pennsylvania, where legislators are seeking a constitutional amendment to strip the governor of many of his emergency powers.

Pennsylvania Republican Sen. Wayne Langerholc said the amendment would “make it unequivocally clear that our General Assembly is a co-equal branch … that we are not a monarchy and that our voices matter.”

Democratic Gov. Tom Wolf and some of his counterparts around the country have argued that they need authority to act quickly and decisively against the fast-changing threat.

The coronavirus has killed an estimated 430,000 Americans and is going through its most lethal phase yet, despite the rollout of vaccines, with new and more contagious variants from abroad turning up in the U.S.

State legislatures generally took on lesser roles after the pandemic hit, with many suspending work or adjourning. It has been governors or their top health officials who have set many of the policies — imposing mask mandates, limiting public gatherings and shutting down dine-in restaurants, gyms, hair salons and other businesses.

Lawmakers in more than half the states have filed bills this year to limit gubernatorial powers during the pandemic and other emergencies, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Most legislatures began their sessions this month.

Kentucky’s Republican-led Legislature could consider as soon as next week whether to override Democratic Gov. Andy Beshear’s vetoes of several bills that would rein in his emergency powers.

Wisconsin’s GOP-controlled Senate voted earlier this week to repeal Democratic Gov. Tony Evers’ emergency health order, which would end the state’s mask mandate. The Republican-controlled Assembly called off a similar vote Thursday in the face of criticism from health, school and business leaders and concern that it could jeopardize more than $49 million in federal aid.

Wisconsin Republicans have argued that Evers exceeded his authority by issuing multiple emergency declarations during the pandemic, which enabled him to extend the mask mandate beyond the 60 days allowed under the law without getting the Legislature’s approval.

Evers contends that the changing nature of the pandemic warranted new emergency declarations.

The amendment Pennsylvania Republicans are seeking to place on the May ballot also would put a cap on the governor’s disaster declarations — 21 days, unless lawmakers vote to extend them. The Legislature also could halt them at any time with a two-thirds vote.

Wolf has said that prematurely ending his disaster declaration would itself be “disastrous” for the state and that requiring repeated legislative approval “could slow down or halt emergency response when aid is most needed.”

In Michigan, House Republicans have threatened to withhold billions of dollars for schools unless Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer cedes her administration’s power to prohibit in-person instruction and sports to local health departments. Whitmer called the move “cruel and reckless.”

Whitmer was the target of an alleged kidnapping plot last fall by anti-government extremists upset over her coronavirus restrictions.

Though legislative resistance to executive coronavirus orders has fallen largely along partisan lines in some states, lawmakers elsewhere are pushing back against governors of their own parties.

Republicans in the Arizona Senate want to end the broad emergency powers that GOP Gov. Doug Ducey has used to limit large gatherings and business capacities.

Ohio Sen. Rob McColley introduced a bill this week that could rescind emergency health orders issued by Gov. Mike DeWine, a fellow Republican. It would create a committee to retroactively review them. DeWine vetoed a similar bill last year.

McColley said the Legislature needs to take action “when the relatively unfettered power of the executive branch during a time of emergency has lasted as long as it has.”

Read full story here…




How To Stop The World Economic Forum’s ‘Great Reset’

The “collectivist tyrants” pushing the Great Reset should be understood as Technocrats pushing Technocracy. The Populist movement is the only natural enemy of Technocracy, but this movement has largely abandoned personal responsibility as the solution while looking to figureheads instead. ⁃ TN Editor

There are many millions of Americans today in the post-election environment that feel uneasy about the fate of the country given the rise of a Biden presidency. And though I understand why this tension exists, I want to offer a possible “silver lining”; a different way of looking at the situation:

With Biden in the White House, there is no longer any ambiguity about what conservatives (and some of the more courageous moderates) need to do and need to accomplish. Now we know where we stand, and now the stakes are clear.

With Trump in office, a lot of liberty minded people became a little too comfortable, to the point that they were inactive. They actually believed the system could be repaired and corruption ended from within, and without much effort on our part beyond our votes. Trump made many conservatives lazy.

Then there was the Q-anon-sense floating around on the web which also misled some freedom activists into thinking that people much higher placed or “smarter” than us were fighting the good fight behind the scenes and that the globalists would be swept up in a grand 4D chess maneuver. This was a fantasy; it was never going to happen. Finally, everyone knows this and we can get on with the business of fighting the real battles ahead.

I think we are reaching a stage in the conflict between freedom advocates and collectivist tyrants when many illusions are going to melt away, and all we will be left with is cold hard reality. Now is the time when we find out who is going to stand their ground and fight for what they believe in, and who is going to cower and submit just to save their own skin. Now is the time when we find out who has balls.

The last four years plus the election of 2020 have revealed that political solutions are out the window. A lot of conservatives should have known better, but maybe it takes a perceived disaster to shock some people out of their waking dreams. Elections, voting, potential third parties; it’s all Kabuki theater. It’s all a facade to keep us docile and under control.

The liberty movement cannot revolve around a single political figure. We cannot bottleneck our efforts into the hands of one man or one political party. The fight is up to us – each of us as individuals. It was ALWAYS up to us.

A different form of organization needs to happen if Americans are going to protect our freedoms; a grassroots approach from the ground up rather than the top down. There will of course be people who stand out as teachers and pioneers, those that lead by example. But overall, the movement will not be acting on orders from on high. Rather, it will be acting according to self motivation. The liberty movement is not driven by personalities, but by shared principles which take on a life of their own.

I’m not worried about Biden. In fact, his presence may be the best thing to happen to conservative unity in well over a decade. The only thing I worry about, as noted, is who is going to stand their ground, and who is going to give in?

Biden may also be a wake up call for any moderate democrats out there who thought that by voting for a hair-sniffing corporate puppet they might put an end to the division and civil unrest in the nation. I think they will discover that Joe will attract even MORE civil unrest. He might trigger more looting and rioting by Antifa and BLM than Trump did, by the simple fact these insane people will assume that Biden will be malleable and easier to exploit.

Biden himself is not all that important; he is nothing more than a foil for bigger events and a proxy for more nefarious people. His presence signals that the “Great Reset” agenda is fully greenlit. This agenda has a pretty obvious set of goals, many of them openly admitted to by the World Economic Forum, and some of them strongly implied by the extreme political left and the media. They include:

1) Perpetual pandemic lockdowns and economic controls until the population submits to medical tyranny.

2) Medical passports and contact tracing as a part of everyday life.

3) The censorship and de-platforming of all voices that oppose the agenda.

4) Greatly reduced economic activity in the name of stopping “climate change”.

5) Greatly increased poverty and the loss of private property.

6) The introduction of “Universal Basic Income” in which the government becomes the all-powerful welfare provider and nursemaid for a generation of dependent and desperate people.

7) A cashless society and digital currency system where privacy in trade is completely erased.

8) The creation of a “shared economy” in which no one will own anything and independent production is outlawed.

9) The deletion of national borders and the end of sovereignty and self-determination.

10) The centralization of global political power into the hands of a select few elitists.

Now, you would think that most sensible people would be opposed to such a dystopian agenda. It would inevitably lead to mass death in economic terms, as well as war. Unless you are a psychopath that gets a vicarious thrill from the brutal oppression of millions of people, or you are a globalist that stands to gain immense power, there is nothing about the Reset that benefits you.

That said, there will still be millions of useful idiots that support totalitarian policies, and they will act to enforce them. Some of them will be convinced that they are serving the “greater good”, and others will think that they can “earn a place at the table” if they lick the boots of tyrants long enough. Bottom line? It’s not just the globalists we need to worry about, it is also the contingent of zombies they have duped or bribed into serving the Reset.

The information war is about to take a backseat and a new fight is about to begin. But how will it start?

I believe the first test for conservatives will be Biden’s pandemic response. The Reset agenda and the pandemic are closely intertwined. Do not be misled by calls from Democrats to reopen the economy; there are strings attached.

When New York Governor Andrew Cuomo said that the state needed to reopen, or there would be “nothing left”, he also consistently hinted that vaccination numbers needed to improve. There are two big lies involved in this narrative – The first is that the vaccination rollout has failed on a technical level.

They want us to believe that only around 60% of the first 2 million vaccine doses have been administered because the state and hospitals failed to get them to citizens fast enough. The truth is, as we’ve seen in numerous polls of Americans and medical staff, millions of people DO NOT WANT to take the vaccine. The situation in New York must be shocking to establishment elites; it’s one of the most leftists states in the US and yet they can’t seem to trick enough people into taking the shot.

The same is true across the country, and it’s not because of bureaucratic failure, it is a propaganda failure.

Read full story here…




City Councils Are Last Line Of Defense Against Tyranny

“There ought to be a law!” Why, that would fix our problems, wouldn’t it? We wouldn’t have to lift a finger. Let somebody else do it. That’s what we pay them for, isn’t it?

Unfortunately, this deceptive thinking allows us to escape any personal responsibility for doing anything about the things we don’t like, and this is wrong.

The heartbeat of the First Amendment and the watershed of a Constitutional Republic is and has always been, personal action. Expressing your religion, speaking, writing, assembling together and interacting with government to redress grievances, all require your personal attention and action.

While America has been engulfed in contentious national politics for the last fifty years, the enemies of our nation have done just the opposite: they focused on local action, transforming our cities, towns and communities while we slept.

The phrase “Think global, act local” is attributed to a handful of people, not the least of whom is David Brower, the founder in 1971 of the radical environmental group Friends of the Earth. It has morphed into a slogan for globalization in general and in particular the United Nations’ pervasive program of Sustainable Development as embodied in its Agenda 21, 2030 Agenda and New Urban Agenda policies.

As a master strategy, these globalization-promoting organizations sent hoards of consultants, lobbyists and attorneys into every local community in America to promote a one-sided activism that has led to the ugly transformation of America. Collectively, they “thought global and acted local”.

This stealth attack on local America has gone largely unanswered by those who would agree that this is not the future we want. But, “wanting” isn’t the same as “getting”.

Getting the future you want is predicated on the vigilant, persistent exercise of your First Amendment rights. If you don’t use ‘em, you lose ‘em.

To stop and reverse the downward spiral, Americans must meet the enemy where he is operating and winning, namely, in your own local community.

There are two ways to do this. First, you can work to block something from happening. For instance, residents in Broken Arrow, Oklahoma were alerted that their city council was considering a mandate requiring face masks. In a meeting that took place for public discussion, citizens delivered over three hours of opposing comments that convinced the council to drop the whole idea. This is the First Amendment in action.

Second, you can work to create something that should happen, but isn’t. For example, in December 2020, the New Orleans City Council passed a binding ordinance that placed an outright ban on surveillance technology such as facial recognition software and predictive policing. The year-long process leading up to the final vote was made possible by responsible local citizens who involved themselves in civic affairs by exercising their First Amendment rights.

Who says you can’t fight city hall? Better yet, who says you can’t BE city hall?

Did you know that many local elected positions are filled with no opposition? This means that there were no candidates on the ballot and someone just threw their name in… and got elected! There are water boards, school boards, planning and zoning boards, fire boards, advisory boards and many others in every community.

So, why don’t more level-headed Americans get involved in local civic matters?

Fear. Lack of communication skills. Ignorance. Laziness. No sense of need.

Citizens for Free Speech cannot address all of these, but for those who are ready to stand up and be counted, it does offer dynamic and proven training on how to effectively communicate with people who may not agree with you. These are easily learned skills and behaviors with which anyone can become proficient to make a lasting impact in their local communities.

Simply put, your First Amendment rights to communicate are not abstract concepts that exist in a vacuum. They only appear when you begin to practice them.




What Every Local Civic Leader In America Must Know About Technocracy’s Global Coup d’Etat

I have said for years now that Technocracy is the clear and present danger that America is facing. Today, that clear and present danger is no longer future tense, but is here right now and in full force.

There is only one possible line of defense left for you: local action.

Your cities, towns and communities have the power to stop any part of Technocracy dead in its tracks, if only they would understand what is going on and take action.

For instance, many city councils have already rejected facial recognition (necessary for surveillance) and pre-crime AI software (necessary for control). Any city council can reject membership in unconstitutional regional governance schemes designed to trick communities into Big Tech command-and-control policies.

Only you, the citizen of some community, can warn your local leaders to take action while there is still time to do so. If you fail to do so, then the trouble you face will be on your own head.

In this consideration, the two videos below should be required viewing for every city council member, the mayor, your county’s sheriff and elected board of supervisors. 

If you really want to build resistance in your community, then get people together to watch these together. Talk about it. Talk about solutions and actions that can be taken to throw a monkey wrench into the Technocrat clockworks.

The rest of the world is fighting back. Will Americans join the cause for liberty and freedom from tyranny and scientific dictatorship?

 




Impassioned Speech By Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. Blasts Technocrat Oligarchs

This video was released on October 24, 2020 and has stood the test of time with almost 400,000 views on YouTube and more on other channels. It is a must-view presentation that will confirm what many Americans are thinking and feeling in 2021.

Kennedy knows about censorship from personal experience. His organization, Children’s Health Defense, has been routinely censored by every Big Tech platform in the world.

Kennedy calls for a bi-partisan resistance in America that focuses on the real enemies of freedom and liberty, and well it should. I have stated for years that the dog fights between left and right only obscure what the Technocrats are doing to us behind the curtain.

Americans must get their eyes off the left-right chaos in Washington, DC and start demanding answers to the hard questions we all want answers to.

The fact that the First Amendment and Free Speech are hanging by a thread is no accident. This is how all revolutions start – censorship of all contrary thought, actions and words.

Kennedy does not mention Technocracy by name, but he is hitting on all the key points.

 




German Police Dispense Violence To Anti-Lockdown Protestors

German citizens against lockdowns, face masks and social distancing are taking to the streets by the tens of thousands, only to be met by violence from riot police with water canons and pepper spray. The war against reason is turning ugly. ⁃ TN Editor

German citizens protesting in Berlin on Nov. 18, 2020 against new more restrictive coronavirus lockdowns, masking and social distancing restrictions were dispersed by police forces using water cannons and pepper spray on the crowd of about 10,000. Whistling, chanting and banging saucepans while holding signs, most of the demonstrators were not wearing masks or social distancing, which the police said required them to engage in action to clear the streets of the people failing to obey social distancing regulations.

As helicopters flew above the crowd, some demonstrators threw fireworks, flares and other objects in response to being told to disperse by more than 2,000 police officers, including federal officers and others brought in from nine German states and several hundred protesters were arrested. A smaller demonstration in Frankfurt of about 600 people was also broken up by police using water cannons.

In Berlin, the protesters that included families with children once again gathered near the 18th century Brandenburg Gate, an iconic symbol of Germany’s reunification. The Brandenburg Gate, which is located near the Reichstag building that houses the German parliament (Bundestag), was the scene of massive public protests in August 2020 against coronavirus lockdowns and suspension of civil liberties.

Law Gives Broader Power to Federal Government

The thousands of Germans who took to the streets last week were protesting a proposed amendment to the Infection Protection Act that would make it more difficult to legally challenge federal restrictions on autonomy and freedom of assembly that include store, restaurant, stadium and other public venue closings. Social distancing regulations primarily have been enforced at the state and local levels since government officials declared a coronavirus pandemic emergency last winter.

Holding signs that said “Pandemic of Lies,” “Infection Protection Law = Dictatorship,” “Truth, Freedom, Don’t Touch Our Constitution” and “No forced vaccinations,” the Irish Times reported that the protesters and several conservative politicians are opposed to the new amendment because it gives the current administration broader authority to impose “necessary protective measures” during the pandemic emergency declaration. Some have said it is reminiscent of the Enabling Act of 1933 that gave sweeping power to Hitler’s administration during the Nazi takeover of Germany’s government before World War II.

Read full story here…




Stop Technocracy: Americans Must Rebel Against Lockdowns, Mandated Masks, Forced Vaccinations

The existential threat to the world, including America, is the tyranny of Technocracy. As the twisted and fraudulent narrative takes on a life of its own, only citizens can throw off the intended yoke of Scientific Dictatorship. ⁃ TN Editor

With the presidential election highly contested and the mainstream media hyping the rising infection numbers, the public is now facing important questions regarding the future of the pandemic response. Some states have decided to unilaterally introduce “executive orders” to restrict citizen movements, business openings and public activities.

Anthony Fauci is on the news constantly, calling for families to cancel Thanksgiving and Christmas and telling Americans to just “do what we are told”. The media is generally trying to drum up fear in the minds of the populace and paint images of plague and death everywhere. If Biden does actually end up in the White House, a federalized and national high level lockdown is on the table starting in January.

In April of this year I published an article titled ‘Waves Of Mutilation: Medical Tyranny And The Cashless Society’, which outlined a social engineering model put forward by globalists at MIT and the Imperial College of London which I called “wave theory”. The model essentially works like this:

Governments must use the pandemic as a rationale for “waves” of restrictive lockdowns, followed by controlled re-openings of the economy and of normal human activity. Globalists claim that this will “slow” the spread of the coronavirus and save lives. However, they also openly admit that these cycles of closures and openings have other uses.

Over time, the citizenry becomes acclimated to governmental intrusion in their everyday lives, and they get used to the idea of bureaucracy telling them what they are not allowed to do when it comes to the simplest activities. The system thus bottlenecks all human interactions to the point that we are constantly asking for permission. We become slaves to the Covid response.

As globalist Gideon Lichfield from MIT stated in his article ‘We’re Not Going Back To Normal’:

Ultimately, however, I predict that we’ll restore the ability to socialize safely by developing more sophisticated ways to identify who is a disease risk and who isn’t, and discriminating—legally—against those who are.

…one can imagine a world in which, to get on a flight, perhaps you’ll have to be signed up to a service that tracks your movements via your phone. The airline wouldn’t be able to see where you’d gone, but it would get an alert if you’d been close to known infected people or disease hot spots. There’d be similar requirements at the entrance to large venues, government buildings, or public transport hubs. There would be temperature scanners everywhere, and your workplace might demand you wear a monitor that tracks your temperature or other vital signs. Where nightclubs ask for proof of age, in future they might ask for proof of immunity—an identity card or some kind of digital verification via your phone, showing you’ve already recovered from or been vaccinated against the latest virus strains.”

Note that Lichfield suggested that in order to participate in the normal economy you might need to show verification that you have been “vaccinated against the latest virus strains”. In other words, the elites expect there to be many more viral events or mutations AFTER Covid 19 has run its course, and the restrictions and controls we see today are meant to continue, possibly FOREVER.

The reality is that the wave model is not a very practical plan for stopping viral spread, but it is a perfect method for conditioning people to submit to a high level of control over their personal lives that they never would have accepted otherwise. The Covid response has also been heralded by elites at the World Economic Forum as a perfect “opportunity” to initiate what they call the “Great Reset”. The reset is a plan to deconstruct what’s left of the free market capitalist system, introduce carbon controls in the name of the global warming fraud, institute a global cashless monetary system, and finally, move humanity into what they call a “shared economy” in which the average person is no longer allowed to own private property of any kind and is completely dependent on the system for their basic necessities.

Of course, such a complex system of “solutions” (dominance) over every individual would need to be managed in a highly centralized way. Meaning, global governance by the elitist establishment would be the end result. Naturally….the globalists would reluctantly take the reins of power for “the greater good”.

This is the bigger picture, the underlying threat at the core of the lockdowns and Covid laws. That said, there are also numerous arguments based on logic and evidence as to why there is no reason for people to submit to such restrictions. Let’s outline them in a simple list:

The Coronavirus Kills Less Than 1% Of The People It Infects

Medical studies in the US indicate that the coronavirus deaths rate for citizens NOT living in nursing homes has been holding well below 1% on average. The largest percentage of deaths by far in the US has been in nursing homes among elderly people with preexisting conditions. People in long term care facilities make up 8% of Covid infection cases but they are 45% of all covid deaths.

Pneumonia alone kills around 50,000 Americans each year according to the CDC, and that’s with vaccinations, yet, we are supposed to panic and hand over all our freedoms in the name of stopping a disease which affects a tiny percentage of the population? This is why the media and governments have decided to hyperfocus on infection numbers rather than deaths. The death numbers do not warrant the amount of panic the establishment is trying to foment.

Lockdowns Destroy The Economy

It’s basic math and finance; the small business sector of the US economy is dying. Small businesses make up around 50% of US employment. The Covid bailout money, handled by international banks like JP Morgan, did not get to the vast majority of small businesses that were supposed to receive it. Those businesses that did get bailouts are still on the verge of closure or bankruptcy. Any further lockdowns will be the final nail in the coffin for the US economy, except for major corporations which are enjoying the lion’s share of stimulus cash.

How many lives will be damaged or lost due to poverty and economic collapse if the current trend continues? I suspect far more than any lives lost because of Covid.

Why is no one in the mainstream talking about the most practical solution to the pandemic? The small percentage of people who are most at risk can STAY HOME and take precautions as necessary, while the rest of us get on with our lives. Why are we being ordered to do the exact opposite just to make less than 1% of the population feel safer? How is this logical, reasonable or scientific? The only answer that makes sense is that the lockdown response is about control, not saving lives.

State Governors Have No Authority To Take Away Your Civil Liberties, And Neither Does The President

Restrictions based on executive orders have no legal authority under the Constitution. They are color of law, not true law. Laws are debated and passed by state legislatures, not by state governors. Executive orders only apply to state employees and have no bearing on the citizenry.

Leftists and statists argue that during a national crisis the governor has emergency powers and states can do whatever they want. This is false. Under the constitution and the Bill of Rights, state governors do not get to proclaim a national emergency based on their personal opinion and then declare themselves dictators in response. Any “laws” exerted because of such a process are therefor null and void; they are meaningless.

If the states have the ability to do whatever they want without oversight, then they would be able to bring back Jim Crow laws (among other things). Do leftists support that idea as well? If the federal government and the president have the power to violate the Bill of Rights during a national emergency, then Donald Trump has the authority to bring in martial law across the country because of leftist riots. Do leftists agree with that outcome?

It is interesting to me that the political left in particular is so keen on defending the idea of states and governors having the power to unilaterally enforce pandemic restrictions without oversight or checks and balances. Yet, they have been aggressively opposed to state powers in the past when they had a Democratic president like Obama in office. The left has also been staunchly opposed to executive orders applied by Donald Trump, but they applaud the idea of executive orders on lockdowns being instituted by Biden.

So, leftists support unilateral state power only when it works in favor of their agenda, and they support unilateral federal and presidential power only when it works in favor of their agenda. What a surprise…

The bottom line is this: State government powers do not supersede the Bill of Rights. Federal government powers do not supersede the Bill of Rights. NO ONE has the legal power to take away your inherent liberties. Those that claim otherwise have something to gain from your enslavement.

Mask Laws Are Unscientific

The majority of masks being used by the public today are cloth masks. Not even the CDC recommends the use of cloth masks for their own employees or medical workers. They only recommend N95 masks. They also admit that cloth masks are much less effective at preventing contact with the virus. Yet, the CDC supports the enforcement of cloth masks for the public.

On top of that, some states and countries with the most stringent mask laws continue to see huge spikes in coronavirus infections. For example, New York has been one of the most tyrannical enforcers of mask laws and lockdowns in the US, but in November the state has witnessed extensive infection increases. California, Michigan and Illinois have also seen dramatic infection spikes this month despite hard enforcement of masks. So, where is the science?

It would appear that masks are a placebo; if they actually worked, then the states with the most aggressive enforcement should be seeing a dramatic downturn in cases, not exponential increases.

Furthermore, why are many states and countries trying to force citizens to wear masks outside in open air and sunlight when viruses cannot survive in such conditions? UV light from the sun is nature’s sterilizer, but no one in the mainstream or in government acknowledges this scientific fact. Again, this shows that mask laws are about control, not about science or saving lives.

Read full story here…




Ron Paul: There Is No Vaccine For Tyranny

Tyranny takes liberty over any excuse, but never, ever gives it back. Collectively and individually, government leaders have turned the the mechanisms of governance against the American people. Scientific dictatorship, aka Technocracy, is the authoritarianism we face today. ⁃ TN Editor

The World Health Organization (WHO) recently admitted that lockdowns cause more harm than good. Following this announcement, one would have expected American politicians to immediately end the lockdowns. After all, the WHO ‘s pronouncements are considered infallible, so much so that social media sites silence anyone who dares challenge the great and powerful WHO. Yet, governors, mayors, and other government officials across the country are ignoring the WHO’s anti-lockdown position.

Instead of admitting that the lockdowns were a mistake, many in the political class, which includes a disturbing number of medical professionals whose positions and prestige depend on government, claim that we cannot return to normalcy until a coronavirus vaccine is in wide use. This suggests that people among the majority of Americans who do not wish to be vaccinated will remain under lockdown or be forced to be vaccinated against their will.

The assault on our liberty will not end with deployment and use of a vaccine. Moncef Slaoui, the chief adviser of the Trump administration’s Operation Warp Speed, a “public-private partnership” in charge of producing and delivering a coronavirus vaccine, has said that those who receive a vaccine will be monitored by “incredibly precise … tracking systems.” Slaoui has also indicated that tech giants Google and Oracle will help the government keep tabs on the vaccinated individuals. So, the vaccine program will lead to an increase in government surveillance!

Slaoui is just the latest “expert” to endorse forcing the American people to relinquish their few remaining scraps of privacy to stop coronavirus. Dr. Anthony Fauci and Bill Gates have urged development of a digital certificate for those vaccinated for coronavirus. People without the certificate would find their liberty severely restricted.

Those who think that the new surveillance system will be limited to coronavirus should remember that Social Security numbers were only supposed to be used to administer the Social Security program. They should also consider that the PATRIOT Act’s expansion of warrantless wiretapping was supposed to be limited to stopping terrorists. However, these powers have been used for a wide variety of purposes. Whenever government is given power to abuse our rights for one reason it will inevitably use that power to abuse our rights for other reasons as well.

Fauci and Gates’ digital certificate could, and likely will, be expanded to include proof individuals have received a variety of other vaccines and medical treatments. The digital certificate could even extend to monitoring a person’s lifestyle choices on the grounds that unhealthy habits make one more susceptible to diseases.

The digital certificate could also be tied to the REAL ID program to deny individuals who have not been vaccinated the right to travel. It could also be combined with a future mandatory E-Verify system to deny unvaccinated individuals the right to hold a job. Those who consider this “paranoia” should consider Britain is already developing a covid passport.

Liberty lost in the “war on covid” will not be voluntarily returned when the coronavirus threat ends — assuming the government ever stop moving the goal posts and declares the coronavirus threat is over. Instead, the people must be prepared to take back their liberty from the politicians. Fortunately, we still have the ability to do so by the peaceful means of educating our fellow citizens and pressuring our elected officials to reverse course. We must all do what we can to use these peaceful tools before we are in a “dark winter” of authoritarianism.

Read full story here…




Technocracy Vs. The Republic: The Fight For Our Future

Because the pandemic is being used to destroy constitutional rights and especially the First Amendment, the very mechanism of citizen resistance is disappearing. If you cannot communicate, you cannot resist. Taking over all public media and stomping free speech has always been the first order of business in previous revolutions. ⁃ TN Editor

People living in the western world are in the greatest fight for the future of pluralist and republican forms of governance since the rise and fall of fascism 75 years ago. As then, society had to be built up from a war. Today’s war has been an economic war of the oligarchs against the republic, and it increasingly appears that the coronavirus pandemic is being used, on the political end, as a massive coup against pluralist society. We are being confronted with this ‘great reset’, alluding to post-war construction. But for a whole generation people have already been living under an ever-increasing austerity regimen. This is a regimen that can only be explained as some toxic combination of the systemic inevitabilities of a consumer-driven society on the foundation of planned obsolescence, and the never-ending greed and lust for power which defines whole sections of the sociopathic oligarchy.

Recently we saw UK PM Boris Johnson stand in front of a ‘Build Back Better’ sign, speaking to the need for a ‘great reset’. ‘Build Back Better’ happens to be Joe Biden’s campaign slogan, which raises many other questions for another time. But, to what extent are the handlers who manage ‘Joe Biden’, and those managing ‘Boris Johnson’ working the same script?

The more pertinent question is to ask: in whose interest is this ‘great reset’ being carried out? Certainly it cannot be left to those who have built their careers upon the theory and practice of austerity. Certainly it cannot be left to those who have built their careers as puppets of a morally decaying oligarchy.

What Johnson calls the ‘Great Reset’, Biden calls the ‘Biden Plan for a Clean Energy Revolution & Environmental Justice’. Certainly the coming economy cannot be left to Boris Johnson or Joe Biden.

How is it that now Boris Johnson speaks publicly of a ‘great reset’, whereas just months ago when those outside the ruling media paradigm used this phrase, it was censured by corporate Atlanticist media as being conspiratorial in nature? This is an excellent question posed by Neil Clark.

And so we have by now all read numerous articles in the official press talking about how economic life after coronavirus will never be the same as it was before. Atlanticist press has even run numerous opinion articles talking about how this may cut against globalization – a fair point, and one which many thinking people by and large agree with.

Yet they have set aside any substantive discussion about what exists in lieu of globalization, and what the economy looks like in various parts of the world if it is not globalized. We have consistently spoken of multipolarity, a term that in decades past was utilized frequently in western vectors, in the sphere of geopolitics and international relations. Now there is some strange ban on the term, and so we are now bereft of a language with which to have an honest discussion about the post-globalization paradigm.

Technocracy or Pluralism? A Fight Against the Newspeak

Until now, we have only been given a steady diet of distancing, of lockdown provisions, quarantining, track and trace, and we have forgotten entirely about the fact that all of this was only supposed to be a two or three-week long exercise to flatten the curve. And now the truth is emerging that what is being planned is a new proposal being disguised as a ‘great reset’.

One of the large problems in discussing the ‘great reset’ is that a false dichotomy has arisen around it. Either one wants things to be how they were before and without changes to the status quo, or they promote this ‘great reset’. Unfortunately, Clark in his RT article falls into this false dichotomy, and perhaps only for expedience sake in discussing some other point, he does not challenge the inherent problems in ‘how things were before’. In truth, we would be surprised if Clark did not appreciate what we are going to propose.

What we propose is that we must oppose their ‘new normal’ ‘great reset’, while also understanding the inherent problems of what had been normalized up until Covid.

The way things were before was also a tremendous problem, and yet now it only seems better in comparison to the police state-like provisions we’ve encountered throughout the course of politicizing the spectre of this ‘pandemic’.

Oddly this politicization is based in positive cases (and not hospitalizations) ostensibly linked to the novel coronavirus. Strangely, we are told to ‘listen to the consensus science’ even as these very institutions consist of politically arrived at appointments. Certainly science is not about consensus, but about challenging assumptions, repeatability and a lively debate between disagreeing scientists with relatively equal qualifications. As Kuhn explains in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, science is always evolving, and by definition potentially overturns consensus paradigms. This is a debate we have not seen, and this fact by itself represents an illiberal cancer growing on an already defective pluralist society – ironically, all flying under the banner of liberalism.

Decisions that a society decides to take should be driven by reason, prudence, and justice. What is or isn’t scientific plays a role, but cannot be the deciding factor. Science clearly says that we may eliminate cross-walk injuries by banning street-crossing or by banning driving, but what policy makers must do is account for the need to have both cars and crossing the street, in deciding how – if it’s even possible – to reduce or eliminate such injuries. Science is only one part of this equation.

But isn’t economics also a science? Is sociology not a science? What about psychology and psychiatry – as in the known effects of social isolation and, say, suicide prevention? What about housing and urban planning? The great sociologist Emile Durkheim explains how these are sciences – they adopt and apply the scientific method in their work. Universities have been awarding doctoral degrees in these sciences for a century or more, do these expert opinions not count when managing a public catastrophe?

It is, and always has been, a political and politicized position to listen to some scientists, and not others.

And so what of our term ‘reset’? Indeed, it is itself misleading, and we would propose it is intentionally so if we understand Orwell’s critique of the use of language – newspeak – in technocratic oligarchies.

A ‘reset’ textually refers to going back to something once known, erasing defects or contradictions which arose along the way, which carries with it the familiar, and something we had previously all agreed to. A ‘reset’ by definition means going back to how things were before – not just recently, but before at some point farther back. Its definition is literally contrary to how Boris Johnson means it in his shocking public statement at the start of October.

The term ‘reset’ was therefore arrived with extraordinary planning and thoughtfulness, with the intent to persuade [manipulate] the public. It simultaneously straddles two unique concepts, and bundles them together at once into a single term in a manner that reduces nuance and complexity and therefore also reduces thinking. It does so while appealing to the implicit notion of the term that it relates to a past consensus agreement.

If understood as we are told to understand it, we must hold two mutually contradictory notions at the same time – we are incongruously told that this reset must effectively restore society to how it was at some point before because things can never be how they were at any time before. Only within the paradigm of this vicious newspeak could anything ever have the public thinking that such a textual construction makes any bit of sense.

What are Our Real Options? Whose Reset?

Those who understand that this ‘reset’ is not a reset but rather a whole new proposal on the entire organization of society, but being done through oligarchical methods and without the sort of mandate required in a society governed by laws and not men, are – as we have said – reluctant to admit that a great change is indeed necessary.

Rather, we must understand that the underlying catastrophic economic mechanisms which are forcing this great change exist independently of the coronavirus, and exist independently of the particular changes which the oligarchs promoting their version of a ‘reset’ (read: new proposals) would like to see.

You see, the people and the oligarchs are locked into a single system together. In the long-term, it seems as if the oligarchs are looking for solutions to change that fact, and effect a final solution that grants them an entirely break-away civilization. But at this moment, that is not the case. Yet this system cannot carry forward as it has been, and the Coronavirus presents a reason at once both mysterious in its timing and also profound in its implications, to push forward a new proposal.

We believe that technology is quickly arriving at a point where the vast majority of human beings will be considered redundant. If the technocracy wants to create a walled civilization, and leave the rest of humanity to manage their own lives along some agrarian, mediaeval mode of production, there may indeed be benefits to those who live along agrarian lines. But based in what we know about psychopathy, and the tendency of that among those who govern, such an amicable solution is likely not in the cards.

That is why the anti-lockdown protests are so critically important to endorse. This is precisely because the lockdown measures are used to ban mass public demonstrations, a critical part of pushing public policy in the direction of the interests of the general public. A whole part of the left has been compromised, and rolled out to fight imaginary fascists, by which they mean anyone with conventional social views which predate May of 1968. All the while the actual plutocrats unleash a new system of oligarchical control which, for most, has not been hitherto contemplated except by relatively obscure political scientists, futurists, and science fiction authors.

Certainly the consumerist economic system (sometimes called ‘capitalism’ by the left), which is based in both globalized supply chains but also planned obsolescence, is no longer feasible. In truth, this relied upon a third-world to be a source of both raw materials and cheaper labor. The plus here is that this ‘developing world’ has largely now developed. But that means they will be needing their own raw materials, and their own middle-classes have driven up their own cost of labor. Globalization was based in some world before development, where the real dynamic is best explained as imperialism, and so it makes sense that this system is a relic of the past, and indeed ought to be.

It increasingly appears that the ‘Coronavirus pandemic’, was secondary to the foregone economic crisis which we were told accompanied it. Rather, it seems that the former came into being to explain-away the latter.

Another world is possible, but it is one which citizens fight for. In the U.S., England, Scotland, Ireland, and Germany, there have already been rather large anti-lockdown demonstrations. These, as we have explained, are not just against lockdown but are positively pushing to assert the right to public and political association, to public and political speech, and the redressing of grievances. This is a fundamental right for citizens in any republic where there is any sort of check on the oligarchy.

We have written on the kind of world that is possible, in our piece from April 2020 titled: “Coronavirus Shutdown: The End of Globalization and Planned Obsolescence – Enter Multipolarity”. That lays out what is possible, and what the problems of pre-corona system were, in economic terms more than political. Here we discuss the problems of globalization-based supply chain security in a multipolar world, and the larger problem of planned obsolescence, especially in light of 3D printing, automation, and the internet of things.

We posed the philosophical question as to whether it is justified to have a goods-production system based upon both the guaranteed re-sale of the same type of goods due to planned obsolescence and the ‘work guarantees’ that came with it. In short, do we live to work or to we work to live? And with the 4th industrial revolution looming, we posed the question of what will happen after human workers are no longer required.

Pluralist society is the compromise outcome of a ceasefire in the class war between the oligarchy and the various other classes that compromise the people, at large. Largely idealized and romantic ideas that form the basis of the liberal-democratic ideology (as well as classical fascism) are used to explain how it is the oligarchy that is so very committed to that arrangement of pluralism, and that this very arrangement is the product of their benevolence, and not the truth: that it was the fight put up by common people to fight for a more just future. No doubt there have been benevolent oligarchs who really believed in the liberal ideology, of which fascism is one of its more radical products. But the view that the class struggle can be acculturated or legislated into non-existence is similar to believing that the law of gravity can be ruled unlawful in a court.

Perhaps we have forgotten what it takes, and perhaps things just have not gotten bad enough. Decreases in testosterone levels in the population may be leading to a dangerous moment where vigorous defiance to injustice is much less possible. Critical now is to avoid any artificial means to opiate ourselves into thinking things are better than they are, whether by way of anti-depressants or other self-medication. Only with a clear assessment of the real situation on the ground can we forge the necessary strategy.

The great political crisis now is that a pandemic is being used to justify an end-run around constitutional rights, an end-run around pluralist society, and so the vehicle – the mechanism – that the general public might use to fight for their version of a ‘reset’ is on the verge of disappearing.

In many ways this means that now is the final moment. We ask – whose great reset, ours or theirs?

Read full story here…