After having some time to think about what I wrote about using the “freedom from fear” to justify gun control, I kind of tripped and fell into an even more interesting conclusion:
What if the gun control isn’t the end goal?
After having some time to think about what I wrote about using the “freedom from fear” to justify gun control, I kind of tripped and fell into an even more interesting conclusion:
What if the gun control isn’t the end goal?
(Video also available on Bitchute.)
A recent article by Jon Miltimore over at FEE about Russell Brand’s demonetization got me thinking about this phenomenon. I think we’re all aware that there are some very shady people who really want to pull the strings of society, but even so I feel like Neo-Feudalism is one of those terms that gets treated as whack-job but really isn’t when you think about it.
One of the tools necessary for a relatively free (but not stateless) society to function is free speech. Free speech allows for vigorous arguments to flourish and help people understand contentious issues. As a state becomes more censorious, or as people become more vindictive about those presenting differing opinions, it is natural for people making arguments that counter the narrative to want additional protection. The use of anonymity or pseudonyms provides this additional protection for dissidents.
First off, I cannot recommend highly enough this recent episode of the Scott Horton Show. Scott talks to Matt Taibbi about the recent court order (released on July 4, 2023) that prevented the Feds from asking social media websites to censor you.
One clear-as-day indicator that the state is out of control is its desire for censorship.
Now, a “good” state (if such a thing is possible) is not interested in forcing the people to think a certain way about any particular issue. If it does anything, it provides facts or arranges for round-tables where a variety of perspectives are discussed.
The “bully pulpit” describes when some person or group in a position of authority uses that authority to make its desires clear to the public. When the executive branch of the government uses it, it is an extremely dangerous tool that can have serious negative consequences.
In the past, it was used to keep wage rates above market and exacerbated the Great Depression. Right now, it’s being used to attack the rights to free speech, expression, and press.
This is a clear threat to free discourse and it should be loudly opposed whenever possible.
One of the issues people often underestimate is the state’s tenacity at finding and punishing its critics. In this video, I discuss two cases, in Quebec and Minnesota, where a Chinese student made statements on the internet about the corruption of the Chinese government while living abroad, only to discover upon returning to China that they were in significant legal trouble.
Links to the two articles are:
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2021/09/18/a-chinese-student-in-canada-had-two-followers-on-twitter-he-still-didnt-escape-beijings-threats-over-online-activity.html
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2020/01/31/prosecution-china-student-tweets-he-posted-while-studying-us-raises-free-speech