For years, censorship has stalked anyone who has dared to tell the truth or speak out against the global communist conspiracy. As one of the most significant elections in American history approaches, however, the powers-that-be have pushed their suppression efforts into overdrive. For instance, last month, Almighty Facebook announced that beginning on October 1, they would openly censor posts they disagreed with – to avoid supposed legal liabilities, of course. But it goes beyond Facebook silencing patriotic voices – all big tech entities from Google to YouTube to Twitter to Facebook have joined in a Devilish scheme to silence truth tellers and, eventually, to criminalize dissent to the Establishment they serve.
To begin, yours truly has been banned for the fourteenth time by Facebook. Interestingly, this time, they did not tell me why they blocked me for the next thirty days. And when I tried to appeal, they gave me an error message. I’m left to wonder which of my posts offended the Marxists at Facebook so much that they felt the need to ban me yet again.
Was it the post detailing how numerous Antifa members have trained in Syria with Marxist terrorist groups, learning terrorist tactics which they’ve imported into the United States? Or did they dig back to find something “controversial” I shared over a year ago in a private group, like they did earlier this summer? Who knows?! But what I do know is that I’m banned from sharing content with my 11,000 followers in the month before a critical election already plagued with fraudulent activity.
“We have to make a choice as free Americans. Will we allow ourselves to be tyrannized by a self-appointed dictatorship that wants to control our minds and force us into compliant slavery or will we reject the dictatorship of consent and instead repeat Benjamin Franklin’s motto, “Rebellion to Tyrants is Obedience to God”? Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and the rest, think they can terrorize us into compliance. They think we will walk willingly into the digital GULAG they’ve built for us. Surely, some will. Some value so-called security over real Liberty. Those who do are cowards. Their destiny is shame and regret. Ignore them.
“As for the rest of us, the modern Sons of Liberty, we will not trade Freedom for security, America for a global Marxist superstate, or Freedom of thought and expression under the Constitution for high-tech oppression with its false comfort of “community standards.” Those who comply with Facebook’s tyrannical efforts to censor Christians, conservatives, and anti-communists, don’t speak for the rest of us. Millions of us will never go along with the big tech version of communist China’s social credit system.”
In the final equation, that’s what we’re dealing with – the issue of whether society will go full communist or whether we will win our country back from its avowed enemies. Cyberspace is one of the premier battlefields in this information warfare because it is where most people today get their information. It is where they often develop their ideas or first learn of breaking news. It is a major force for good when properly utilized and a major force for evil when used to promote values that undermine the foundation of Faith, Families, and Freedom our civilization was built upon.
In this cyberspace siege, those who can be roughly deemed “conservative” are on the defensive. Big tech and its ideological allies are waging a full-scale offensive against us, our principles, our history, our institutions, and our right to think and speak as we please. They’re attempting to silence voices like mine which unapologetically reject their perversions of morals, principles, and programs, and which instead promote traditional ideals, expose wickedness in high places, and rally others to the standard of Liberty.
An analysis from the Tea Party Pac noted how the fighting has become more heated in the past four years:
“Since 2016, an untold number of conservative outlets have watched their reach plummet if their pages aren’t shut down completely. Facebook’s definition of “hate speech” has been sure to include application to all manner of ideas that offend liberals.
“Everything from Bible verses to comments on the mental health of those with gender dysphoria have been banned as “hate speech” . . . .
“The social media platform is simply trying to eradicate conservative content – however innocuous – from its platform to demoralize conservatives and influence the 2020 election outcome in Democrats’ favor.”
How can anyone deny the intensity of this war against classic American norms, against the Constitution, against our national heroes, against our Christian foundation, and, yes, against President Donald Trump? The average person and insider alike should be painfully aware of what’s happening to the First Amendment. It’s never been more important than now to recognize big tech’s schemes to silence dissent to their elitist, socialist agenda.
Journalist Allum Bokhari recently published a hard-hitting book titled #Deleted: Big Tech’s Battle to Erase the Trump Movement and Steal the Election. In it, he explained the imminent danger of big tech censorship:
“When tech giants, in addition to controlling the largest platforms on the web, also control the means of competing with them, we no longer have a free-market economy. We have an oligopoly economy, dominated by a few giant companies that follow largely the same ideology.
“Only this time, it’s more dangerous. We’re not talking about a telephone monopoly that provides poor service due to lack of competition, as Ma Bell used to do. Nor are we talking about a railroad monopoly that engages in rate fixing, as the nineteenth-century rail barons did. Those were all problematic to the public interest and deserved to be corrected, but they were not existential threats to freedom and democracy.
“The tech monopolies of today are far more dangerous. The product over which they have a monopoly is nothing as mundane as railroads or telephones – it’s us. It’s our personal information, our political viewpoints, our attention, and our content. Big Tech owns the mother of all public squares, it owns the devices in our homes and pockets, and it’s using them to find out everything about us.
“Completing the picture of a totalitarian digital nation-state, Facebook has announced the creation of its own digital currency, the Libra coin – which would give the company the power to regulate and spy on our purchases as well. Facebook and Google are tirelessly working on new ways to use our data to manipulate us – originally so that advertisers could target us, and now, terrifyingly, so that Big Tech companies can change our moral conduct and our political beliefs. If you resist? They’ll just ban you. . . .
“. . . the age of digital tyranny is already here. It is a particularly cruel kind of tyranny, because immediately preceding it was a period of true, uninhibited digital freedom. Silicon Valley entrepreneurs gave the world something precious, valuable, and almost universally beloved – and then made us watch as they smashed it to pieces.”
Bokhari proceeded to explain some of the ways that the Silicon Valley totalitarians manipulate us online. They do the obvious, such as banning posts supporting Kyle Rittenhouse, thereby concealing the truth that he is a hero for defending himself against a mob of pedophiles and felons who were attacking him and threatening his life. However, their efforts to censor and manipulate us run much deeper. Bokhari explained:
“YouTube has on numerous occasions adjusted its search results for politically charged topics in response to complaints from left-wing journalists . . . the algorithms of Big Tech companies can be manipulated against conservatives, while still granting those tech companies plausible deniability.
“Leaks have also revealed that some in Silicon Valley know exactly what the goal is in 2020. Leaked footage of Google executives that I published in September 2019 revealed the company’s leadership making sinister comments that suggested a game plan: they talked of the need to “deploy the great strength of the company” and make the populist movement a “blip” in history.”
Furthermore, Bokhari divulged the danger of an emerging field called Machine Learning Fairness, which he described as an effort to “ensure that artificial intelligence is trained to be “fair” – as defined by left-wing academics.” He wrote:
“Although Google’s ML Fairness is framed as a campaign against bias, it is the precise opposite – an attempt to imprint left-wing biases on the technology that will, increasingly, govern our lives. Ask yourself: Would an AI designed to detect incitement to violence identify antifa if it were trained by Silicon Valley social justice warriors? If you were to train an AI to detect racism and bigotry, would it identify the New York Times’ antiwhite bigot Sarah Jeong? Would it identify the feminists who like to joke about killing all men? Would it categorize Covingtongate as a harassment campaign? An unbiased AI certain would, but Silicon Valley is not training its machines to be unbiased.”
Bokhari said that the default nature of AI is “right-wing” in the sense that what it does is look at empirical data and draw logical conclusions. However, the future of AI is in the hands of the left-wing radicals building the new systems:
“Nevertheless, those on the left enjoy their own massive advantage . . . they have developed an overwhelming cultural hegemony in Silicon Valley, which is building the AI systems of the future. If we don’t want our future robot overlords to autocorrect all our emails to use gender-neutral pronouns, or pre-ban us for drafting a Facebook post that contains “hate speech,” this crisis of political culture in tech is something that must be urgently addressed. If the vast power of AI were successfully turned to political purposes, we might as well elect Big Tech CEOs emperors of the world.”
Surely you can see how devastatingly dangerous it would be to have this system rolled out on a universal scale. It would effectively marginalize and penalize anyone holding views not in vogue with the global Marxist Establishment. It would be a Chinese-style social credit system, yes, but, more to the point, it would be a digital GULAG for all humanity.
Far-fetched? Think again. In an article more than a year old, Mike Elgan warned of the communist social credit system being steadily erected right here in the United States:
“Many Westerners are disturbed by what they read about China’s social credit system. But such systems, it turns out, are not unique to China. A parallel system is developing in the United States, in part as the result of Silicon Valley and technology-industry user policies, and in part by surveillance of social media activity by private companies. . . .
“The most disturbing attribute of a social credit system is not that it’s invasive, but that it’s extralegal. Crimes are punished outside the legal system, which means no presumption of innocence, no legal representation, no judge, no jury, and often no appeal. In other words, it’s an alternative legal system where the accused have fewer rights.
“Social credit systems are an end-run around the pesky complications of the legal system. Unlike China’s government policy, the social credit system emerging in the U.S. is enforced by private companies. If the public objects to how these laws are enforced, it can’t elect new rule-makers.
“An increasing number of societal “privileges” related to transportation, accommodations, communications, and the rates we pay for services (like insurance) are either controlled by technology companies or affected by how we use technology services. And Silicon Valley’s rules for being allowed to use their services are getting stricter.
“If current trends hold, it’s possible that in the future a majority of misdemeanors and even some felonies will be punished not by Washington, D.C., but by Silicon Valley. It’s a slippery slope away from democracy and toward corporatocracy.”
As our lives shift more to cyberspace, the harm that can be inflicted by communist-oriented big tech companies is amplified dramatically. As noted, this system essentially replaces the constitutional system of rule of law, limited powers, checks and balances, and safeguarded rights with a Devilish system created by communists, endorsed by communists, controlled by communists, and dependent upon the arbitrary whims of a small group that hates everything normal Americans cherish.
In June of 2019, I wrote an article discussing the Mark of the Beast prophesied by the Apostle John and my belief that it won’t be a physical chip or tattoo, but, simply, digital totalitarianism akin to Red China’s social credit system. In the piece, I wrote:
“Yesterday, June 5, 2019, we witnessed an example of how the beast system currently curtails and controls a person’s right to buy and sell. I refer to YouTube’s demonetization of Steven Crowder’s YouTube channel. Steven Crowder is a highly popular conservative YouTuber with nearly four million subscribers on his channel. He hosts the show Louder with Crowder. Yesterday, YouTube demonetized Crowder’s channel. Why? Crowder was demonetized because he has said many things that are politically incorrect and that rub the Establishment the wrong way. In particular, he has been labeled “homophobic.” It is just the latest example of political correctness at work.
“Anyone who follows my writings knows that political correctness is a communist invention imported from Soviet Russia. It is a means of thought control and one of the greatest threats to free speech. To be politically correct is to toe the communist line – or, to toe the beast’s line. To be labeled politically incorrect, one must simply dissent from and openly oppose the communist ideology. Those who oppose the communist conspiracy’s efforts to turn the world into a GULAG must be prepared to face criticism and persecution.
“Under the aegis of political correctness, the powers-that-be have begun restricting certain people’s ability to carry on their careers and earn a living. They have directly attacked the pocketbooks of activists, labeled “extremists,” with whom they disagree. For example, they file lawsuits against Christians who exercise their right to not make cakes for homosexuals, effectively shutting down their businesses. They block people from accessing social media platforms and having an equal chance to reach an audience and promote products. They revoke licenses and kick people off the air, closing down their avenues for self-promotion. They ban authors’ books, or prevent them from reaching major distributors, in a kind of digital book burning. They restrict travel rights in some situations, such as when Britain banned Michael Savage. They even go after the bank accounts of businesses and high-profile figures, causing their businesses to collapse.
“Crowder is just the latest in a long line of blacklisted figures that includes Alex Jones, Paul Joseph Watson, Laura Loomer, Jordan Peterson, Paul Nehlen, Milo Yiannopolous, MS King, David Irving, etc. At the present time, yours truly is currently banned for thirty more days from Facebook. Alex Jones is perhaps the most famous person on the list. Alex Jones of Infowars fame has been permanently banned from Facebook and Twitter, had his YouTube accounts suspended, been removed from the Apple iTunes app store, been deleted on Spotify, and so forth. Google also restricts search results to filter out as many of Infowars’ stories as possible. Jones’ ability to reach an audience and, thus, earn a living and promote his message, has been severely compromised by the Marxist Establishment. Anyone who speaks out against the tide of cultural Marxism, political insanity, and Satanism sweeping the globe is a target for persecution. And it will only get worse. . . .
“Whether or not an official social credit system ever reaches our shores, an informal system is already taking shape. Tech oligarchs in United States and throughout the West are beginning to informally do what Red China is formally doing. Media platforms essentially rank their users and punish them for failure to comply with their political and cultural ideas. Just as Chinese are prevented from traveling, Americans are prevented from speaking. Once we lose the right to speak out, other rights will quickly succumb.”
Today, sixteen months later, things have gotten worse and our rights are quickly succumbing to Establishment censorship. This presidential election has really showcased what big tech is capable of. For instance, in August, the Committee to Defend the President, a super PAC supporting President Trump, was banned for 90 days. It’s “crime”? Sharing too many posts that were marked by “third-party fact-checkers to be false.” In other words, Marxist-minded “fact-checkers” with left-wing funding called something “fake” so Facebook could use it as a pretext to penalize Trump supporters. I’ve been nailed repeatedly for spreading so-called “false news.” In not one case were the “fact-checkers” correct in their “facts.”
Back in June, Facebook removed one of President Trump’s anti-Antifa, anti-mob violence ads, calling it “organized hate.” This action was spurred on by Mark Zuckerberg’s tribesmen in the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), which ought to be branded as a terrorist organization and dismantled. The ADL of B’nai B’rith, lying as usual, tried to claim that the red triangle pictured in the ad was an “anti-Semitic” symbol. In reality, it is a Semitic symbol inasmuch as it is used by the Jew-created, Jew-dominated Antifa. Jewish-controlled Facebook, of course, complied with the ADL’s request to purge President Trump’s ad.
Donald Trump, Jr. has also suffered the wrath of the big tech gods. His Twitter account was suspended in July for sharing “false information” in a video about the Coronahoax. President Trump also shared the video, though with no repercussions. But the video was deleted by Twitter, YouTube, and Facebook.
Later, in August, Twitter locked the Trump campaign’s Twitter page over what they deemed “misinformation” about the Coronahoax. The Hill, a leftist rag, reported:
“The move by Twitter comes after several incidents in recent months in which it penalized the president’s personal account. The platform previously flagged a tweet about mail-in voting as containing misleading claims about an election. Another saying looters would be shot during unrest after the death of George Floyd was flagged as promoting violence. A third, featuring an edit of a clip of a Black toddler and a white toddler embracing, was removed for containing “manipulated media” due to the addition of a fictitious CNN chyron.”
Finally, Facebook has announced that they will not allow President Trump to declare victory on election night if they deem the results premature (technically the results are always premature until the Electoral College votes). That means we could likely have this scenario: On November 3, President Trump wins the election but is blocked from telling the public by big tech and the controlled press. Then the Biden campaign announces either a parallel victory declaration or a legal challenge to the president’s announcement. On November 4, the American People would wake up to the news that either Biden won, it’s too close to call, or the “fascist” President Trump is trying to steal the election. In all probability, a new wave of pre-planned riots and insurrection would break out with the rallying cry: “Remove the dictator from office!” Big tech almost singlehandedly has the ability to facilitate or defuse a crisis like this depending on whether they engage in censorship or whether they let the American People be heard in a free and fair manner.
A nearly endless list of big tech assaults on President Trump and his supporters could be reproduced here, but listing these few censorship attacks on the president and his family suffice to paint an accurate picture. The efforts to silence Trump supporters and anyone opposed to the communist takeover of society are legion. They’ve become so glaring and obvious that President Trump has been forced to take executive action against the offending tech companies.
President Donald Trump’s May 28 executive order states in part:
“In a country that has long cherished the freedom of expression, we cannot allow a limited number of online platforms to hand pick the speech that Americans may access and convey on the internet. This practice is fundamentally un-American and anti-democratic. When large, powerful social media companies censor opinions with which they disagree, they exercise a dangerous power. They cease functioning as passive bulletin boards, and ought to be viewed and treated as content creators. . . .
“Online platforms are engaging in selective censorship that is harming our national discourse. Tens of thousands of Americans have reported, among other troubling behaviors, online platforms “flagging” content as inappropriate, even though it does not violate any stated terms of service; making unannounced and unexplained changes to company policies that have the effect of disfavoring certain viewpoints; and deleting content and entire accounts with no warning, no rationale, and no recourse. . . .
“Twitter now selectively decides to place a warning label on certain tweets in a manner that clearly reflects political bias. As has been reported, Twitter seems never to have placed such a label on another politician’s tweet. As recently as last week, Representative Adam Schiff was continuing to mislead his followers by peddling the long-disproved Russian Collusion Hoax, and Twitter did not flag those tweets. Unsurprisingly, its officer in charge of so-called ‘Site Integrity’ has flaunted his political bias in his own tweets.
“At the same time online platforms are invoking inconsistent, irrational, and groundless justifications to censor or otherwise restrict Americans’ speech here at home, several online platforms are profiting from and promoting the aggression and disinformation spread by foreign governments like China. One United States company, for example, created a search engine for the Chinese Communist Party that would have blacklisted searches for “human rights,” hid data unfavorable to the Chinese Communist Party, and tracked users determined appropriate for surveillance. It also established research partnerships in China that provide direct benefits to the Chinese military. Other companies have accepted advertisements paid for by the Chinese government that spread false information about China’s mass imprisonment of religious minorities, thereby enabling these abuses of human rights. They have also amplified China’s propaganda abroad, including by allowing Chinese government officials to use their platforms to spread misinformation regarding the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic, and to undermine pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong.
“As a Nation, we must foster and protect diverse viewpoints in today’s digital communications environment where all Americans can and should have a voice. We must seek transparency and accountability from online platforms, and encourage standards and tools to protect and preserve the integrity and openness of American discourse and freedom of expression.”
The remainder of the order spelled out the legal justification for government involvement in cyberspace to prevent censorship and bias on platforms alleging to be open forums for public discourse. One of the reasons listed in section 3, which I have repeatedly harped on for years, is the fact that our tax dollars are being given by the billions to big tech. Companies that receive public money cannot claim the right reserved to private entities to discriminate. If they receive public money, they must uphold public law (i.e. the First Amendment) and be accountable to the People’s representatives. Listing this and other reasons, President Trump ordered the Federal Trade Commission to “consider taking action, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, to prohibit unfair or deceptive acts or practices” by big tech against its patrons.
Perhaps it was in response to this order, and to avoid legal liability for so blatantly censoring conservatives, that Facebook rolled out its October 1 rules. Slashing through the doublespeak we find that the new rules amount to a scheme of enhanced censorship! Facebook’s excuse is that they want to avoid legal problems over controversial things users may post. I believe, however, they are merely extending their suppression of patriotic voices before a major election and trying to project their own guilt onto those they oppress. Whatever the precise reasons, one thing is certain: They’ve given themselves carte blanche to censor anyone, any time, for any reason, thus presenting a serious threat to free speech everywhere.
Dear reader, big tech’s suppression of patriotic voices has deep implications for the upcoming presidential election and for the future beyond November 2020. It could well be the catalyst for the theft of the election or even an attempted Black Lives Matter/Antifa-instigated coup. However, the impact of cyber censorship extends far beyond one election, regardless of how important that election is. In palpable ways, big tech reaches into our daily lives, affects the way we can earn a living, determines what we are allowed to say publicly, stifles dissent to Establishment corruption, warps public perception of reality, promotes values antithetical to the Christian ideals that undergird our constitutional Republic, and, ultimately, deteriorates our God-given rights.
Mark my words, unless the American People wake up and demand their representatives hold big tech accountable, we will lose our ability to speak freely in any meaningful way on the internet. We will find ourselves relegated to our own little echo chambers in various corners of the web and not truly participating in debates and discussions in the public forum. Not only that, constitutionalists, conspiracy researchers, and Christians will be hunted by artificial intelligence programed to detect, track, and silence us. Truthfully, we are already being hunted and herded into a Soviet-style digital GULAG that, once society goes cashless, will have a very real stranglehold over our lives.
The fact that alternatives to Twitter and Facebook, such as Parler, MeWe, Minds, and OneWay, are cropping up, is encouraging. But the very fact that people have been forced to create alternative platforms in order to have any chance of exercising their right to express themselves speaks volumes about the level to which Marxist censorship controls the prevailing narrative and, thus, controls public opinions and habits.
We live in an age of big tech totalitarianism. The enemies of the People promote their hostile brew of communist ideology in large part by controlling the public mind through technology, which they bring to pass by silencing those who promote healthy, anti-communist principles. By picking favorites, they limit the information that the average person is exposed to. People thus limited make worse political decisions which translate into blows against Freedom – and they do so without even knowing they did. The ferocity of this dastardly assault can be greatly diminished by reclaiming the public forum in cyberspace. To do that, however, requires reeling in big tech before we have so many uninformed citizens who shrug their shoulders and go along to get along with the ravenous forces of the global Marxist Establishment.
During this pivotal season of humanity’s history, it is crucial that those who are awake and aware stand up for what’s right. It is imperative that we place principle over party and ideas over individual cults of personality. The choice before us not only on November 3 but every day of our lives is whether communism or Americanism will prevail. This war, waged on Facebook and Twitter, in the press and in conversations with friends, and in the voting booth, is as real and deadly as any our nation has ever fought or will yet fight. It is a war for the souls of our countrymen.
I close with immortal words from Ronald Reagan, who articulated the stakes of this fight so well when he declared:
“We’re at war with the most dangerous enemy that has ever faced mankind in his long climb from the swamp to the stars, and it’s been said if we lose that war, and in so doing lose this way of freedom of ours, history will record with the greatest astonishment that those who had the most to lose did the least to prevent its happening. Well I think it’s time we ask ourselves if we still know the freedoms that were intended for us by the Founding Fathers.
“. . . If we lose freedom here, there’s no place to escape to. This is the last stand on earth. . . .
“This is the issue of this election: whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capitol can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves. . . .
“You and I have a rendezvous with destiny.
“We’ll preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we’ll sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness.”
October 13, 2020