Response to Volkischexe's essay on Nihilism

In response to:

https://gab.com/volkischexe/posts/108745645184350950

https://wiccawicci.com/philosophy/nihilism

Okay, I read it. 

You assert that nihilists are basically lazy and inconsistent because they don't believe anything matters. But they do - to them, it matters very much that everyone else accept their apparent point of view and Submit to it, lest they remain dangerously motivated against it. 

Further, while it's true that they love to initiate change - seemingly for its own sake - it's really so they alone can control the infliction of pain-causing damage first rather than continue to have it inflicted on them by others. 

Change initiated by others really scares them, which is precisely why they so-fervently want to dominate it ALL. 

They hate and fear their own brains' "painful" detection of patterns of difference - and so try to neutralize such "diversity" by ignoring it, and/or "equalizing" it just by "including" it in the same categories as that which it clearly differs from. 

But difference is endemic to existence, so their desire to crush all of the risky dynamics of life to render them "safely" static, can never succeed. 

As for whether or not any truly objective "Greater Meaning"/Higher Purpose" (and/or Greater Purpose/ Higher Meaning) exists - no it doesn't: the only purpose of existence is to exist, and of life is to life. 

The purpose of consciousness seems to be to sort and discriminate patterns, to categorize them into dynamic perception and static conception, and perhaps maybe even to try to turn all risky dynamic perceptions into safely static conceptions after all, but in a sane and logical way, as in to learn to heed one's fears as helpful internally generated warnings to learn from to avoid future pain-causing damages, rather than illogically in the literally backwards and insane manner as to regard one's own fears as threatening externally-inflicted additional damage-causing pains, to be ignored avoided and even foolishly attacked, to embrace hope as a plan in order to heal damage, as Christians are taught to do. 

In short, I believe this has always been a war of hypocrite criminals against their honest civilized law-abiding victims, not one where we are only harming ourselves and our posterity by attempting to conform to universal, global ideologies - as long as that global ideology is hypocritology. 

This could well lead to a Roddenberry-like Utopian future for all of mankind in its various nations - where the Blacks and Muslims, like the "Klingons" they were coyly mocked as, must learn self-control of their own greater violent animal instincts than ours, but also to not resent us for the relative ease by which we can control ours.

However, regarding your final conclusion that: "you were not gifted with free will and intelligence so that you can send yourself down a spiral that ends in black nothingness. Your existence matters because you exist."

Well, maybe not, but "the gods" certainly can and often do - my family has a history of Alzheimer's, where all of our thoughts and free-will choices and intelligence spiral down into black nothingness where we are forgotten and erased, whether we like it or not.

As for being deliberately Created - again, No.

As I like to tell Abrahamic monotheistic Christians:

There is no higher power, greater meaning or higher purpose; it's always all material. The purpose of existence is to exist, of life to live, and of consciousness to sort symptoms from causes to better avoid pain-causing damage, the fear of it, the greed for less and the ultimately useless hope of no more of any of it ever again. 

That emotional and sensational cycle is known as dharma. 

Christianity is a lie, as it promises an eternal damage, pain, fear, and greed (and therefore also hope and consciousness-free) heaven, which is totally impossible because without experiencing all of them, we can't experience any of them. Further, "Sin!" by all of its symptoms, is nothing more than all-too-common hypocrisy; it's not some magical, "spiritual stain" on one's "soul" (consciousness) which only a god can absolve forgive and remove. It was the criminal choice to attack thereby innocent other people first, and as it was one's own free-will choice, only one's self can remove it by first repenting of it and asking one's victims for forgiveness while offering them reparations. No one - not even the alleged One True God, Creator of the entire Universe, aka the First Cause and Prime Mover (which by definition must always attack every one and every thing else first, even if just by the act of creating them, and thus is by our definition entirely immoral itself) can defeat and save even its self from dharma, much less promise anyone else that it can and will "Save!" them from it, much less just for declaring by turning off their equally allegedly god-given brain's pattern-detecting ability, to have some sort of false "Faith!" and to "Believe!" in what they do not know and even if they did, makes no logical sense, as I have just explained. Nor can anyone just "not-attack-first" their way into heaven, either. It doesn't exist. 

There is no "after" life which can be any different than this one. Dharma is eternally part of consciousness.

As for "Faith:"

Re: "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." Hebrews 11:1 KJV

No. Hope of things not proven by yet being seen and realized is the exact OPPOSITE of "evidence." It's denial of evidence. And mere Hope (aka "Faith!" and "Belief!") is NOT "A Plan!" at all, and in fact, it's a recipe for disaster.

Christianity projects nebulous hope as a solid future fact, as "Faith!" and "Belief!" that God has, embodies and will reveal the perfect solution to every problem in one Final Day of Judgment. The problem with this idol is, "The" Perfect Solution to every problem can't exist, because the perfect solution for one problem not only wouldn't also perfectly fit even a slightly different problem, and might cause other ones;  but even if it could, it would unify the whole universe to such an extent that it would cease to be fractured divided and "damaged" and so we would all  simply cease to be conscious at all, as no differences would exist for our brains' pattern detectors to discriminate, de-fine, etc and it would all become a solid Nothing. 

And of course there can be no "Beginning" of Everything and/or End of it all/Final Day of Judgment, simply because the only thing which cannot exist is Nothingness "itself" and to have a 'Beginning' implies Nothingness DID once upon a time exist, and the putative End of All Things presumes it will exist again in the future.

Re: " We weren't created to conform to a single, unchanging worldview - if we were, achieving such unity would be a trivial matter, because it would be natural. n our limited capacity as humans, we cannot possibly play the role of the gods. It isn't within our authority to determine which nations - or which people - have a right to exist. The intentional nature of our existence is what gives us the right to exist." And, re: "we are only harming ourselves and our posterity by attempting to conform to universal, global ideologies."

So again, I say: No!

Maybe there aren't any more things, people, nations, or "souls" (consciousnesses) than just you. 

Let's speculate about the Christians' theology, where their One True God, Creator of the Entire Universe, Prime Mover and First Cause ideal, is omniscient and supreme, and, as Spirit trumps flesh, only dynamic mind truly exists, and static matter is only an illusion. 

But then that also means that for the illusion to fool the Godly uber-mind, it must be created by that same God's Mind - as Doubt. 

So thoughts alone, even as a god (say, Thoth) doesn't mean all "spiritual" thought is logical sane or even good and efficient - there can be mistakes and "bad" thoughts, too. 

God thinks: "I am Perfect, and, as I Am everything, I can and will do anything I want, when and where ever I want to do it! Whee!" 

But then, because he is thought and therefore has to think all thoughts, even the incorrect ones, he also thinks: 

"But what if I'm wrong? What if I did evolve from mere insensate matter, but, since then I was insensate until I wasn't, I certainly couldn't remember any of it?" 

So God, by being infinite and eternally conscious, must invent Doubt. Which means our "Faith!" in Him as the Only Perfect Being is utterly useless, as not even He can have Perfect Faith in His own Self, much less in us and ours!

And more, since he can and will do anything and eventually, through being bored and distracted by doubts, everything, he eventually creates a whole lot of little versions of him self (aka the pagan gods, and then us) to play out his infinite mental/spiritual speculative fantasies - and because we have different hopes dreams wishes and desires in our doubt-limited ("faithless") lives, we are in conflicts with each other, and so we are limited to "laws" of physics just to even peacefully co-exist?

So maybe, as you say, he speculates that other councils of lesser, "pagan" gods have also always existed (and therefore they do) to monitor and influence the various Nations and Tribes in their separately "evolved" environments, too.

So we can see how that Judeo-Christian "God is pure spirit, power and will, and thought itself and is omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent" theory works out in real life?

As in: it doesn't, because it can't. If and when one is omniscient, then, since consciousness can only exist to learn to think about things, and one already knows everything, then one cannot learn or think because one has literally nothing left to learn.

Similarly, if one is both omnipresent and omnipotent, then, as one is already everywhere, having left and arrived, one has nowhere left to go, and nothing left to do to expend any more power, having already done everything - so in effect one is mindless, powerless, and nowhere; again, when one's god is generally only "Everything!" then it is also by definition specifically only "Nothing."

In Conclusion: What you call "Nihilists," I identify as hypocrites!

;-)

Anti-globalism is going mainstream... which means engineered disaster is about to strike

From Brandon Smith of the Bob Livingston Personal Liberty Letter 28 Sept 2022:

For many years I have noted that criminals tend to brag about their criminality only when they believe there is nothing anyone can do about it. Frankly, in their narcissism, many of them can't help but revel in the moment and let everyone know how "superior" they are to the rest of us. We witnessed many moments like this from elitists within globalist institutions over the past couple of years at the height of the pandemic pandemonium.

There were people like the globalist academics at MIT proclaiming that we were "never going back to normal" and that we were going to have to accept the loss of many of our freedoms for the rest of our lives in order to combat the spread of COVID. There were people like Klaus Schwab declaring the beginning of the "Great Reset" and the launch of what the Davos crowd calls the "4th Industrial Revolution." There have also been many political leaders like Joe Biden who strut around on the media stage accusing ideological opponents (conservatives mostly) of being "enemies of democracy."

If their vision of "democracy" is medical tyranny and the forced expansion of cultural Marxism through government cooperation with corporate monopoly along with the erasure of our country's founding principles, then yes, I suppose I am indeed an enemy of "democracy."

The globalists were really basking in the glow of their assumed victory. They really thought they had us peasants by the scruff of the neck and that their agenda was all but assured. But as I have been arguing since last year, the money elites may have celebrated a little too early.

The COVID agenda utterly failed if the goal was to implement longstanding mandates and restrictions. If you want to know what success for the globalists would have looked like, just examine China with its endless lockdown cycles and digital vaccine passports. The elites wanted that outcome for the west and they didn't get it. They came close, but millions of Americans, Canadians and Europeans stood their ground and the cost to force us into compliance would have been too great.

Even Joe Biden has openly admitted that the pandemic is over. They dropped the mandates because they knew if it came to war, they would lose.

If the goal of the pandemic fear factory was simply to get the population injected with the mRNA vaccines, here they also failed. With many states in the U.S. 40 percent unvaxxed (according to official numbers) and many parts of the world with large unvaxxed populations, there is a massive control group for the COVID vaccines. If there are going to be constantly developing health problems associated with the mRNA vax (like Myocarditis) then we are going to know what caused them because of this control group. The globalists needed near-100 percent vaccination and they did not get it. Not even close.

There is no escape for them. They greatly overestimated the public's apathy when it comes to authoritarianism. The rebellion is too large, and they will eventually be held accountable for their trespasses.

Case in point: The latest election in Italy has resulted in a landslide win for the conservative coalition and the new prime minister (and first woman prime minister), Georgia Meloni, gave a rousing victory speech this week that directly exposed the far-left invasion of western nations, globalism and the poisonous collusion with woke corporations to silence dissent. She called for a return to freedom, and what was the mainstream media response? They are calling her a "fascist," even though she openly supports Israel and the Jewish agenda.

The Italian election represents an ongoing trend, an awakening of the people to the imminent threats presented by globalists, and they can't stop it.

The fear among the globalists is palpable. Anti-globalism is now going mainstream, and as it does people are going to start looking for answers. Why have our global economic conditions been so degraded? Why are we facing a stagflationary crisis? Why are prices on everything continuing to climb? Why did we almost lose all of our civil liberties in the name of fighting a virus with a tiny 0.23 percent official median Infection Fatality Rate? Why are pointless carbon controls being instituted in the middle of a supply chain crisis? Why are politicians and banks making everything so much worse?

The public outcry for a reckoning is growing and it's the heads of globalists that will end up on the chopping block. All roads to destruction lead back to them and the policies they have forced upon the populace.

Of course, when criminals feel like they are being cornered they will sometimes set fires and take hostages in a last-ditch effort to stay alive and slip through the net. I believe we are closing in on that stage of this terrible drama. It's important to accept the conditions of the battlefield as they are and not underestimate the enemy. The truth is globalists have extensive means at their disposal to wreak havoc and they have already set some disasters in motion.

As I warned many years ago, tensions with eastern nations are being used to diminish the role of the U.S. dollar as the world reserve currency and the petro currency. The conflict is also causing resource shortages and supply chain weakness, not to mention an energy crisis in Europe.

I also predicted in 2017 that the Federal Reserve would repeat a pattern of raising interest rates into severe economic weakness causing increased economic turmoil. They used a very similar tactic at the onset of the Great Depression, which former federal reserve chairman Ben Bernanke openly admitted was the cause of the long-term deflationary collapse.

From my article in 2017:

"The changing of the Fed chair is absolutely meaningless as far as policy is concerned. Jerome Powell will continue the same exact initiatives as Yellen; stimulus will be removed, rates will be hiked and the balance sheet will be reduced, leaving the massive market bubble the Fed originally created vulnerable to implosion.

An observant person... might have noticed that central banks around the world seem to be acting in a coordinated fashion to remove stimulus support from markets and raise interest rates, cutting off supply lines of easy money that have long been a crutch for our crippled economy."

The Bank for International Settlements, the central bank of central banks and the institution that writes global policy initiatives for all other member banks, called for more rate hikes last week. This shows that the globalists want a crash and are engineering conditions of instability. They set up the dominoes in advance and now they have decided to knock them down. I think this is a failsafe; a panic trigger in the event that the globalists did not get the control they wanted from the COVID pandemic.

They will blame Russia, they will blame China, they will blame conservatives, and they will blame anything and anyone besides themselves in an attempt to divert public attention away from the international banking actions that created the crash conditions in the first place. We can't let them. Whatever happens next, it is vital that people remember who really did this to us and who needs to be punished.

The establishment power brokers are going to attempt to use a chaos screen in order to sow seeds of fear in the population. They are going to try to exploit that fear to gain even more centralized governance and change the very foundations of our society while suffocating what's left of our liberties. It's the only play they have left, but at least we now know there are millions of us out there... millions of people who will not comply and who will fight back. And we know that the globalists are afraid; if they weren't then they would not be falling back to such drastic measures.

To truth and knowledge,

Brandon Smith 

Democrats, the anti-worker party

 

Ask a Democrat why they're a Democrat and they'll usually say it's because the Democrat Party is the party of the working man. These people believe this so strongly that they'd vote for the Democrat over anyone else, even if the Democrat on the ticket was an old yellow dog.

It doesn't matter that Democrat policies have been devastating to the poor and middle-class workers in this country for almost 100 years. The poor and middle class still turn out in droves to vote for them. Democrat politicians have successfully positioned themselves as the party of the poor, and they've created an enmity between the poor and the rich.

Democrat leaders perpetuate this enmity with popular slogans like "living wage," "fair share," "working poor," "greedy rich," "rich Republicans" and "evil profits." Their rank and file have bought it hook, line and sinker.

The Great Society

By the late 1950s, America had somewhat recovered from the effects of Woodrow Wilson's policies — the Federal Reserve, the income tax and World War I — and Franklin Delano Roosevelt's policies — the New Deal and World War II — and prosperity was returning.

Then along came Lyndon Baines Johnson, the Great Society and the next great expansion of the nanny state. Previous Democrat administration policies had been devastating to the people they purported to help and, with his Great Society programs Johnson continued the assault on the poor under the guise of helping the "less fortunate" (as if success is only about how you're born, the opposite of the American ideal).

Within three years of assuming the Presidency in 1963, Johnson had requested 200 major pieces of legislation and Congress had approved 181 of them, according to Leslie Carbone in Slaying Leviathan: The Moral Case for Tax Reform.

"Roosevelt had peddled the drug of government give-aways primarily in the poor neighborhoods; Johnson set up shop in middle-class cul-de-sacs, and most Americans, willingly or unwillingly, wittingly or unwittingly, are forced to shoot up. Johnson's sweeping proposals sought to address almost every issue of concern to Americans: civil rights, poverty, education, health, housing, pollution, the arts, cities, occupational safety, consumer protection, and mass transit, to name only the most prominent," according to Carbone.

And what have these programs wrought? Mark Owen, adjunct professor of economics at Northwood University, wrote a column for LewRockwell.com entitled The Welfare State: Shredding Society. In it he said:

"While crime and family destabilization may be two of the more obvious results of the welfare state, there are many others. The stigma for single mother births has virtually disappeared. Intergenerational dependency on government programs with the related lack of skills for self-sufficiency, much like a farm animal unable to live without the farmer for food and shelter, has created people without hope or ambition."

The welfare state has created a cycle of dependency that perpetuates itself. Now there are third and fourth generations of single women living off welfare and raising children in single-parent homes.

Typically these women live in urban areas and their children are held hostage to failing inner-city school systems. And Democrat policies are to blame for these failing schools.

In 1965 Johnson signed the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, according to Carbone. It provided aid to poor children in slums and rural areas, created a five-year program for school libraries to buy textbooks and other instructional materials and provided for educational research, among other things. Essentially, the Federal government took over the education of children.

Carbone writes: "Representative Charles Goodell warned that the bill's 'clear intent is to radically change our historic structure of education by a dramatic shift of power to the federal level.'" Gradually, step by small step, this is the goal of all progressive, statist Democrats, as you can see today with the constant call for Federal laws and federal takeover of everything, but I digress.

The National Education Association (NEA) teacher's union, a supporter of Democrat candidates and causes, opposes any and all efforts to inject competition or reform into the failing schools. Much the opposite, in fact. Their national meeting this year was all about gender politics, as they sought to change "mother" to "birthing parent," "father" to "non-birthing parent," and "maternity leave" to "parental leave" in the name of LGBTQ inclusion in all contract language. The measure failed, this year at least.

Democrats support such "woke" attempts and also oppose any competition to progressive union teachers and school competition as well. Combined with local teacher unions, the NEA also fights efforts to change the tenure system which protects the jobs of bad teachers to the detriment of the children.

Echoes of FDR

Like Herbert Hoover, George W. Bush was a Republican without a conservative soul. And just like Hoover, his policies to battle the recession were all wrong. First was the stimulus bill of 2008, a $150 billion — 1 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP) — kick in the economy through tax rebate checks that the government hoped would prevent or shorten the recession.

Next came the $700 billion Emergency Economic Stabilization Act and Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). "I've abandoned free-market principles to save the free market," Bush said at the time.

Then Obama went one better than Bush. Just two months after taking office he pushed through Congress a $787 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. So within the space of one year more than $1.5 trillion new dollars had been injected into the economy, further eroding the value of the dollars the poor and middle-class hold.

Michael Barone wrote for The Washington Examiner, "One-third of the 2009 stimulus money went to state and local governments — an obvious payoff to the public employee unions which gave hundreds of millions of dollars to Democrats and got hundreds of billions of dollars in return, to insulate public employee unions from the effects of the recession which has affected everyone else."

And then there are the new tax increases in Biden's so-called "Inflation Reduction Act of 2022" which will do no such thing. How can it, with over $400 billion in new spending? Of course, growing government and creating a cycle of dependency is the goal of Democrat tax-and-spenders.

Party of the working man (or woman)? Not hardly. Only old yellow dogs waiting under the porch for handouts thrive under Democrat policies.

They're convinced they can spend any amount of money, steal any freedom, impose any onerous regulation or create yet another bloated bureaucracy and you will like it. If not, they have both free, fawning media coverage and also enough dough in their pockets to pay for glitzy television advertisements to convince you that whatever they are up to is for your own good.

How Democrats have managed to maintain the myth that their policies are beneficial to Average Working-class Joe (or Jane) is one of the great mysteries of all time — ranking up there with dark matter and how Joe Besser ever became one of the Three Stooges. For Democrat big-government policies have been devastating to the "working" man.

Yours for the truth,

Bob Livingston
Editor, The Bob Livingston Letter®

Should red states block federal agencies like the FBI and IRS from operating with impunity? Blue states already do it!

 From Brandon Smith of Bob Livingston's Personal Liberty Digest 17 August 2022

The concept of "sanctuary cities" has long been implemented within predominantly leftist states in America. It's not anything new. Any operations by DHS and ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) within blue states to arrest and deport illegal immigrants is often met with aggressive resistance by Democrat-run city governments.

Keep in mind that foreign individuals have no right under the constitution to reside in the U.S. without first gaining citizenship. Leftists say they don't care and are happy to welcome millions of illegals into the country with open arms in direct violation of laws protecting our borders as well as the stability of our economy and society. They do this NOT because they are foolishly humanitarian; rather, they see it as a means to import a massive voting block that will give leftists whatever they want because they believe they will get citizenship in exchange.

If they didn't want millions of illegal votes, then Democrats would not be constantly attempting to block voter ID laws.

Obviously, the political left is openly hostile to federal agencies when those agencies happen to obstruct their agenda. Though it's rare these days for blue states and the feds to be at odds, it does happen. ICE and other agencies might try to find ways around sanctuary status, but there is never any question of "treason" or "insurrection." Blue state politicians don't get raided or arrested as national enemies.

I bring up this issue because many readers have asked me to comment on the events at Mar-a-Lago and the FBI search of Donald Trump's home. From my research, every president in history has been given access to classified information after they leave the White House, especially if they are planning to run for office again. One can debate the merits of this policy, but it is a policy just the same. Presidents also have sweeping authority to declassify documents and information when they feel it is justified. Meaning, if documents were found in Trump's possession, it's completely plausible that he simply declassified them before taking them.

The main leftist position is more about the nuances of how the documents are stored and if Trump followed proper procedures through NARA. While the secondary argument by leftists is basically that Trump is a criminal and should not be allowed the same access as other presidents (though impeachment failed, and he has never been criminally charged). Until the information on the raid is unsealed, we really have no idea if Trump actually had any dangerous or top-secret documents in his possession. It's all hypothetical at this point and the progressive media is running wild with the story simply because they hate Trump and are hoping against hope that this event will stop him from running for office in 2024, where Biden would be easily crushed.

My personal feeling on the issue is that people are missing the bigger picture. The Mar-a-Lago raid is much like the Jan. 6 trials. It's all a circus and a distraction. Nothing substantial will come from these actions, it's all about optics and influencing public perception. If anything, the raid on Trump's home actually makes him look MORE appealing to a large number of Americans, who have grown tired of the incompetence and chicanery of the Biden Administration. This event HELPS Trump in the long run instead of hurting him.

The only other possible scenario that makes sense here is that there will be an attempt to arrest Trump on thin charges. Such a move would be seen as purely political in nature and would enrage millions of Americans to the point of civil unrest. But maybe that's the goal...

I have never had much trust in Trump, and I was always highly critical of the fact that he loaded his cabinet with known banking elites and globalists after attacking those same people during his election campaign. This article is not meant to defend Trump or admonish him. Frankly, I don't care.

What I do care about, though, is the increasing tide of federal aggression and the use of federal agencies as a political club to intimidate or beat down opponents of the leftists and globalists. The FBI raid in Florida is one example, then there was the FBI seizure of PA congressman Scott Perry's cellphone, and the Jan. 6 investigations, in general, are purely about intimidation and not about justice.

The message of the Jan. 6 trials is this: Leftists are allowed to violently riot and burn buildings to the ground across the country. Conservatives are not allowed to do anything. If we do, then we will be rounded up for "insurrection." At least, that's what they want us to believe so that we self-censor and live in fear of ever protesting again. We are at an impasse. There is no diplomacy to be had and no agreements to be made. They want us gone, and now we want them gone because they want us gone. This is not going to change.

Another growing concern among many Americans is the sudden explosion in agent recruitment at the IRS, with an implied need for agents that are willing to execute raids and violence. The "Inflation Reduction Act" contains no measures to actually reduce inflation but does contain a climate change agenda, socialized health care measures and an extreme boost to the IRS.

The agency is slated to receive an $80 billion boost from the Inflation Reduction Act and the institution is now looking to hire 87,000 more employees. If the mission is to reduce inflation by using the IRS to steal more money from American consumers, then I guess that could work, but it would also cause recessionary carnage and even more public discontent and anger.

Obviously, not all of the 87,000 new IRS agents will be field agents. Finding that many people with training who are also willing to risk their lives for the IRS would be exceedingly difficult. Many of them will be sitting at a desk, but thousands of them will be strapped and this is what worries people. The mainstream media claims that these new agents will be targeting "rich tax dodgers" but we all know better. The IRS was used extensively under Obama to put pressure on conservative organizations and individuals that were not "rich," and there's no reason to think Biden would not do the same thing.

The IRS even had to apologize to conservative groups for their over-scrutiny as part of a legal settlement in 2017.

They've done it before and they'll do it again, but this time with a massive payout from the Biden White House and probably more leeway to bend the law. So, with federal agencies being utilized more and more as political weapons, should conservative states step in and block their operations?  Blue states do it, why not red states? This is an apples-to-apples comparison and absolutely fair. I would say that what blue states are doing with illegal immigrants is highly destructive in comparison to red states stopping alphabet agencies from using intimidation against conservatives who are legal citizens.

This question leads to a whole gamut of conflicts for sure, there will be endless cries by leftists of "treason." But who cares? We realize that there is a double standard and it's only expanding in the favor of social justice extremists that want to fundamentally disrupt and change the foundations of our country. Why should we play by their rules when they don't play by any?

Red states should enforce a moratorium on federal agency operations until the threats of political abuse are addressed. It is not possible to reach an understanding with leftists at this time because they operate through a lens of zealotry. They cannot be reasoned with because they believe that everything they are doing is righteous and anyone that stands against them is pure evil, so it is better to separate and prevent them from implementing biased policy within our state borders until the conflict is resolved.

To truth and knowledge,

BRANDON SMITH

When equality doesn't mean equal and freedom doesn't mean free

 Everyone is equal under the law. But not everyone is equal. There are hundreds of ways we are not equal. Everything from differences in hair color, ambition, physical strength, competitiveness, mental focus, hand-eye coordination, allergies, musical talent and so on.

Is that unjust?

[NO - because the way people are "equal under the law" is that, being humans with functioning brains and free-will choice and not animals, we all have the exact same right (to not be attacked first) and responsibility (to not attack thereby innocent other people first). So all is forbidden in advance unless and until very specifically agreed on, between all people at all levels of human interaction, from the individual through family to clan, tribe, and nation - and that includes even the largest groups or gangs, like "the state" and/or "the government" which is also not allowed to attack any of its real live human individual citizen component parts first. Therefore we enjoy "Innocent until proven guilty" and not the opposite, and how "Silence does NOT mean consent." Libertine "liberal" criminals, on the other hand, of course want the exact opposite, where under their brazen rule of chaos, all is allowed unless and until very specifically denied in advance, with the result that they can do whatever they want, when and where ever they want, to any and all people places and things they want to do it to, at will.]

;-)

So then, also YES, it is - if you are an elitist social engineer.

Constitutional-sounding words like "equality" and "social justice" are used to give apparent weight and legitimacy to the completely false premises being espoused. They have as much substance as the breath behind the words or smoke on the wind.

They are merely part of the elites' ploy to try to get people to equate things that are merely social constructs, or colloquial social mores, with actual law, the point of which is to have these phrases carry the weight of law and be used to keep us fighting each other.

Social engineers want diversity to become equated with law, and therefore become the de-facto law without anyone ever having voted on it. What a triumph of propaganda we are witnessing should this come to pass!

If the elites get their way, without a vote, without due process, without one person in our Republic having an official voice in the matter, "social justice" and "rights" as defined by the immoral few — for example the so-called rights elitists want are in actuality special privileges – will have the force of law due to propaganda having succeeded in convincing people that there is no difference between constitutional law and unwritten social customs the elites want to force on everyone, even those with a different set of morals.

So who are these enemies of the elites, with different customs and beliefs, and likely to find themselves on the receiving end of penalties imposed due to these non-laws?

The criminal political class has made it quite clear it is not themselves or their government functionaries. It is not the parasitic "taker" class, too distracted by bread and circus, Hollywood antics, amoral lifestyles, reality TV, and "politics," too easily swayed by slick oratory, fancy suits and promises of government largesse to recognize creeping totalitarianism enabled by the psychopath social engineers.

No, those who will be held up as enemies of the State will be Americans who believe in the rule of the law, the Constitution, and freedom. We are always the target, you and I, because we think for ourselves and act independently. The elites want to stamp us out because we refuse to be controlled, dumbed down, tread upon.

We also refuse to be homogenized, and "equalized." The elites, so intent on their versions of "justice" and "equality" want you to think they're intent on making sure no one is left behind. In reality, they are ensuring that no one gets ahead. But isn't that the goal of totalitarian regimes?

In 1776, our founding fathers declared, "When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."

It is necessary for us as right-thinking members of the Republic to separate ourselves from the social engineers. Otherwise, without anyone taking notice, their change agents will continue to distort key words in our language. This blunts, diminishes and distorts our thinking process to the great advantage of unseen authority.

I used to believe that the Bill of Rights was succumbing to tyranny at all levels of government. Now I believe that it is succumbing to self-imposed tyranny — imposed by the very people it is meant to protect and keep free.

This is a part of the "benevolent totalitarianism" I have been writing to you about. It is the "you asked for this" form of tyranny by those in power — uninformed consent by the masses. You begged us for gun control even though it's unconstitutional. You asked us to allow "social justice" even though it's unlawful and arbitrary.

Yours for the truth,

Bob Livingston
Editor, The Bob Livingston Letter

The leftist war on free speech is part of a much bigger agenda

 From Brandon Smith of the Bob Livingston Personal Liberty Alerts

I think one of the most bizarre social developments of the past 10 years in the U.S. has been the slow but steady shift of the political left from supposed defenders of free speech to open aggression against it. The level of rationalization and mental gymnastics on display by leftists to justify their attacks on freedom and the First Amendment are bewildering. So much so that I begin to question if liberals and leftists ever actually had any respect for speech rights to begin with? 

Or maybe the only freedom they cared about was the freedom to watch pornography?

One can see the steady progression of this war on speech and ideas, and the end game is predictable. Is anyone really that surprised that the Biden administration is implementing a Ministry of Truth in the form of the DHS Disinformation Governance Board? Can we just accept the reality at this point that leftists are evil and their efforts feed into an agenda of authoritarianism?

Before I get into this issue, I think it's important to point out that it's becoming tiresome to hear arguments these days suggesting that meeting leftists "somewhere in the middle" is somehow the best and most desirable option. I see this attitude all over the place and I think it comes from a certain naivety about the situation we find ourselves in as a country. Moderates and "normies" are finally starting to realize how bag-lady-crazy leftists are and the pendulum is swinging back slightly, but it was conservatives that were calling out the social justice cult and their highway to hell for years.

There is no such thing as a "center" in our society anymore, either you lean conservative and you support freedom, or you lean left and support authoritarianism. There is no magical and Utopian in-between that we need to achieve to make things right. Also, no, there are no conservatives that support authoritarianism. There are fake GOP RINOS that are not conservative at all in rhetoric or in action; they do not represent conservatives in the slightest. Any Republican that goes against the basic tenets of constitutionalism, free markets, individual liberty, non-intervention in foreign entanglements and the protection of the founding principles of our country is not a conservative.

We need to be clear about where the lines are drawn because sitting on the fence is not an option. Walk in the middle of the road? Get squished like a grape.

To understand how leftists got to the point of enthusiastic hostility against free speech rights there are some psychological and ideological factors that need to be addressed. These are some of the ideals that leftists value that are disjointed or simply wrong:

Hate Speech Is Real And Must Be Censored?

First, as I have argued for many years, well before the social justice movement ever became a point of contention in the U.S., there is no such thing as "hate speech." There is speech that some people don't like and speech they are offended by. That is all.

Constitutionally there is no illegal hate speech. People are allowed to say any offensive thing they wish and believe however they wish as long as they are not slandering a person's reputation with lies or threatening them with direct bodily harm. If you are offended by criticism, that is your problem.

Leftists believe the opposite. They think that "hate speech" is illegal or should be illegal and that they should be the people that determine what hate speech is. This is a kind of magical door to power because if you can declare yourself the arbiter of hate speech you give yourself the authority to control all speech. That is to say, as a speech arbiter all you have to do is label everything you don't like as hate speech, no matter how factual, and you now dictate the course of society.

No one is capable of this kind of objectivity or benevolence. No person alive has the ability to determine what speech is acceptable without bias. Like the One Ring in The Lord of The Rings, there is no individual or group capable of wielding such power without being corrupted by it. Either there is no hate speech, or everything becomes hate speech.

Free Speech Is Negated By Property Rights?

This is in direct reference to social media websites and it's an oversimplification of the issue of free speech and large social media platforms. Here is the conundrum, or "false paradigm" if you will:

Leftists argue for private property rights, but only when it comes to vast corporate big tech platforms like Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, etc. They like private property rights for companies that they think are on their side politically. 

They hate private property rights for everyone else. Just look at their response to Elon Musk's recent Twitter buyout; the leftists are demanding that Musk be stopped at all costs and demanding the SEC and FCC step in to disrupt the sale because they claim Musk's purchase is a "threat to democracy."

Why are Elon Musk's private property rights now less important or protected that the original shareholders of Twitter (Vangaurd, BlackRock, Morgan Stanley and a Saudi Prince)? Because Musk does not appear to represent leftist designs and interests. Leftists have no ideals or principles, they only care about control.

Beyond that irony, though, is the deeper issue of government intervention vs business rights. Is either side really trustworthy? The answer is no. Many people seem to think that government power is supposed to balance out corporate power when the truth is that governments and corporations work hand in hand; they are one in the same entity in many cases.

Twitter and other Big Tech platforms receive billions upon billions of dollars in government stimulus and tax incentives every year. Corporations as a concept are essentially a socialist creation. They enjoy limited liability and corporate personhood along with other special protections under government charter. With all these protections, incentives and stimulus measures, it is almost impossible for small and new businesses to compete with them. They represent a monopoly through cartel; they control the marketplace by colluding with each other and through support of the government itself.

A perfect example of this would be the collusion between multiple Big Tech companies to bring down Parler, a conservative-leaning competitor to Twitter. This required some of the biggest companies on the planet working in unison along with the blessing of government to disrupt the ability of a new company to offer an alternative, and all because Parler was getting too big.

In the case of a private person's home or small business, it's true that there are no free speech rights. They can kick you out and they don't have to give a reason. But when it comes to massive conglomerates that receive billions in our tax dollars in order to stay alive, no, they do not deserve private property rights. They have not made themselves into a public utility.

This is a concept that leftists just don't grasp. Consider global corporation Disney and their open intention to undermine the passage of Florida's anti-grooming bill; this represented a vocal support for the sexualization and indoctrination of children in Florida schools. Leftists cheered the announcement and claimed that without Disney, Florida's economy would be wrecked. Instead, the state turned the tables and took away incentives they had been giving to Disney for decades. 

Leftists responded by accusing Governor DeSantis of being a "fascist" and attacking free speech.

But let's break this down: Leftists happily supported Disney, a massive conglomerate, and their efforts to undermine the will of the voters in Florida. The state government stops them from undermining the voters by taking away the money and special incentives that belong to the voters. In turn, leftists claim this is a violation of Disney's rights?

No corporation, including Disney, is entitled to special incentives from government or the taxpayer. If they accept such incentives, then they must also accept that certain behaviors are unacceptable, including schemes to disrupt legal decisions within a state or country. The corporation is no longer private, it is partially public. This goes for Big Tech and social media platforms as well.

Censorship by these companies is not their right. They gave up that right when they took our money.

Disinformation Is A Threat And Censorship Is The Solution? 

Governments and major corporations talking about the threat of "disinformation" is hilarious for a number of reasons, but mainly because traditionally it is the power brokers that have been the main purveyors of disinformation for a very long time. Suddenly today they care about the spreading of lies?

Rather, I think it is obvious that such people are far more worried about the spread of facts, evidence and truth. The institution of the Disinformation Governance Board is a clear indication that the establishment and the useful idiots on the political left are becoming desperate.

They are losing their grip on the public mind, and we can see this in the results of their recent attempts to enforce medical tyranny across the country in the name of COVID. Luckily, conservatives in at least 20 red states fought against the implementation of COVID lockdowns, mandates and vaccine passports which would have annihilated our constitutional rights, perhaps forever.

If you want to know what our country would look like had conservatives not stopped the tide of tyranny, just take a look at China today. They have some of the strictest COIVD mandates in the world and yet they are locking down millions yet again due to "high infection rates" and starving their own people in the process. It's madness, and it's exactly what leftists were arguing in favor of just a few months ago. The U.S. is mostly open today, just as red states like mine have been free for almost the entirety of the pandemic, and what has changed? Half the country is still unvaccinated and is there mass death in the streets? Nope. 

Nothing has changed in terms of COVID. The mandates made no difference whatsoever, other than to disrupt the economy and reduce people's freedoms.

Not long ago, pointing out this fact was considered "disinformation" that needed to be silenced in order to "save lives." In other words, what the government and corporate oligarchs call "disinformation" today is eventually called reality tomorrow.

It is not their job to protect the public from information, whether real or fake. It is not their job to filter or censor data or ideas. They are not qualified to do this. No one is. Leftists operate from a collectivist mentality, and this makes them believe that society is a singular entity that needs to be managed and manipulated to achieve a specific outcome. They support information control because facts and ideas outside of their narrative could possibly damage their narrative, and if the narrative is damaged, then they think society as a whole is damaged.

That said, if your narrative is so fragile that it does not hold up to scrutiny or alternative viewpoints, then it must not be worth much of a damn, is it? If you have to force people or manipulate people into believing the way you do, then your ideology must be fundamentally flawed. The truth speaks volumes for itself and eventually wins without force. Only lies need to be forced into the collective consciousness.

Government lies in particular are the biggest threat to humanity, and their assertion that they should have the power to dictate what constitutes a "lie" is the biggest clown show of all time. Leftists love lies and use them constantly because they understand that lies are a form of sorcery. If told by the right people with the illusion of authority, lies can garner unlimited power from thin air. Power can only be derived by tricking other people into giving up control over themselves. Power is a trick in which the public is convinced to submit and become enslaved for the "greater good," even though freedom is the only greater good.

The collectivists live vicariously through government power. Leftists gain ecstasy through tyranny because the dominance of the hive mind is their dominance. They actually believe that if the system has ultimate power, they in turn have ultimate power. It is a mental disease that destroys everything in its path, and it is one that is actively encouraged by globalists and oligarchs. Leftist cultists serve their agenda, whether those leftists know it or not.

To truth and knowledge,

Brandon Smith

(And what's MY take on all this, you ask)? Simple!

Morality to honest people is sequential: "Who Started it?" But morality to hypocrites is only: "I'm Never Wrong - Fuck Your "FACTS!" And since they can't prove that to be right, all they've got left is offended subjective emotions and hurt feelings, and to call you names and insist you're always wrong (they don't try to prove them selves objectively right, because they know they can't - so they just stay on the victim-blaming offensive all the time, shallowly accusing their accusers of their own crimes)! Which explains censorship, too. They concentrate on banning the tactics ("ban all assault weapons!") FOR OTHERS, to divert attention away from their own strategy ("always attack first")! This includes judges and all "Authorities!"

Attacking first, with whatever weapon, is the crime; using that same weapon, no matter what is is, to defend one's self and/or innocent others, is moral. 

But all "Authorities!" as professional hypocrites, will have none of that sequence-based 'logic' stuff!

And since they're in charge, there are no consequences for them to continue to always double-down and never have to learn to change their minds, either. They're never wrong while you are always guilty until never proven innocent, peons!

;-)

Woke Twitter elitists are too stupid to realize Elon Musk is saving the platform

 From Brandon Smith of the Bob Livingston Personal Liberty Alerts

Twitter is a bit of an enigma. The social media company has gone from a relatively innocuous space for people to mostly market online businesses and for politicians and celebrities to engage with their followers or detractors, to a vicious battleground overrun with leftist zealots hellbent on using the platform as a weapon to silence dissent and destroy the lives of people that disagree with them. If I was to describe what Twitter really stands for today, I would say it is an attempt to build a global hive mind; a place where everyone is coerced into conformity with establishment ideals through peer pressure and mob aggression.

In other words, Twitter is the antithesis of a free-speech society. A beta test for the future of authoritarianism where you think you are allowed to speak your mind but only the "correct" opinions are allowed to pass.

How this happened is hard to say. Some theorize that leftist cultists scrambled like rats from the sinking ship of Tumblr and found their way over to Twitter to take up residency. I would argue that maybe Twitter was always intended to become what it now is. Just take a look at the monster's gallery of its largest shareholders.

There's Vanguard and Blackrock, which together represent a globalist vampire squid of epic proportions. Their tentacles are wrapped around almost every aspect of the economy including media, big pharma (including Pfizer), weapons manufacturers, huge swaths of the U.S. housing market, etc. If these two mega conglomerates were to somehow be wiped off the face of the Earth tomorrow, the world would be a much better place. For now, they own almost everything.

Then there is Morgan Stanley, another "too big to fail" international banking firm that for some reason has a major stake in the realm of "tweets." Whenever globalist companies like these pursue major investments in a communications platform there is generally something nefarious afoot. And it should be noted that almost all the media companies they own push an agenda that leans hard left and is authoritarian in nature. We witnessed this undeniable dynamic in the past two years as media companies attacked anyone that stood against the illegal covid mandates.

Why do major globalist institutions have so much interest in Twitter?  It's not because Twitter is a moneymaker. In 2020 the company suffered a net income loss of over $1.14 billion. In 2021 there was an income loss of $221 million. Twitter still claims it earns a profit, but this is primarily derived from stock buybacks and state and federal government subsidies, meaning, without overnight loans from the Federal Reserve and tax breaks from government Twitter simply would not exist.

Twitter is carrying a debt load of around $6.75 billion in total liabilities according to The Wall Street Journal, with a dismal stock performance until the pandemic which led to trillions in stimulus dollars flooding into equities markets. Now that the covid checks have dried up, the company's stock has spiraled down yet again. The only thing propping it up today is the sudden prospect of an Elon Musk buyout.

Twitter was bleeding users and was dealing with a declining membership base leading up to 2019 when the company decided it would fix the problem by not reporting traditional user numbers anymore. They shifted to a new metric that they claimed was designed to discount the removal of "spam and bot accounts." One has to wonder how much of Twitter's actual user base is made of real people rather than fake accounts?  Even with the new metrics, evidence suggests they have continued to lose users and revenues since 2019, largely due to the hostile political witch hunt environment that Twitter has developed in the past few years.

The U.S. government has also been heavily invested in Twitter over the years, throwing millions into various projects the company has undertaken including many overseas. This makes sense because Twitter regularly shares user data with government agencies, often while claiming they don't. Surveillance requests are kept secret and any release of information on such requests are blocked by U.S. courts.

Overall, Twitter is a cesspool of political and corporate corruption. A sock puppet of massive globalist shareholders and a data clearinghouse for conglomerates and governments alike. This is why I have never had an account with them, and likely never will.

It boggles my mind how all of these facts can be right out in the open, yet the one thing that sends leftists on Twitter into a rage is the notion that Elon Musk might buy up enough stock in the company to determine its future course. Here are some key facts that I think the Twitter elites need to consider:

1)  Twitter has been on a downward plunge in terms of user base and revenues for years now. The fact that the company's board has decided to assert a leftist political agenda and enforce unbalanced censorship rules is killing the company even further. In a few years, Twitter will not exist. Or, if it does, it will be a shell of its former self much like Myspace or Tumblr. The platform you people think you control is dying. Without fair public discourse and equally enforced guidelines Twitter serves no purpose other than to act as an echo chamber for leftist fanatics, and who wants to be a party to that?

2)  The Twitter cult and their "blue checkmark" gatekeepers are losing their minds over the prospect of a "billionaire" taking over Twitter when in reality the platform has been controlled by the world’s richest and most invasive shareholders for a long time. If you think Vanguard or BlackRock are better stewards than Elon Musk then I suggest you do a little more research on the history of these corporations.

3)  Elon Musk's interest in Twitter has stirred up excitement in a platform that was otherwise destined for the dumpster. I might even suggest that Musk's activities are prolonging Twitter's life span by drawing in investments that never would have been there otherwise. The blue checkmarks should be thanking him instead of attacking him.

4)  What is the primary complaint that Twitter elitists have when it comes to Musk?  That he might bring in more fair and balanced rules which would prevent political censorship. In other words, they are angry because he might allow true free speech within the boundaries of legality for conservatives as well as leftists. This is unacceptable to them. In their minds, free speech is only reserved for those with "correct thinking," and they believe they get to dictate what "correct thinking" is. It takes a special kind of evil to believe that their side is the only side of an issue that deserves to be heard.

In terms of Elon Musk, I'm reserving judgment for now. Tesla and SpaceX receive billions in government subsidies and tax incentives, far more than Twitter does. I question the validity of any company that relies on government handouts in order to survive.

Musk also is an attendee of the World Government Summit in Dubai, where globalists from various nations meet to talk about the agenda for global centralization. Musk's discussion was specifically on how he thinks the future of humanity is to "merge with machines," much like having your cellphone attached to your brain. This sounds like a dystopian nightmare to me; governments already track and monitor cellphone activity, do you really want them to do the same with your brain?

Setting all that aside, Musk's surprising pursuit of Twitter is interesting no matter which way it goes. He could take control and shut the whole thing down, which is what I would suggest given the platform is a cancer on society and rife with government and corporate surveillance. Scattering the blue check cult to the four winds would be one of the best gifts Musk could give the world right now. They can always complain about everything on other platforms, just not with so much concentrated corporate power at their disposal.

Musk could sell his nearly 10 percent share in the company and trigger a massive plunge in the stock price. This might even precipitate a faster end to the platform. Then again, he may continue to buy up shares and find a way around Twitter's "poison pill" initiative. In fact, in the back of my conspiracy brain, I wonder if Musk is actually saving Twitter rather than changing it or destroying it?

The company was entering the doldrums; its life expectancy was waning quickly. The influence of the Twitter mob has been decreasing and their ability to harm others is disappearing. Big tech companies are like sharks. They must keep moving forward in order to grow and survive. Twitter's momentum has been dead for some time. Maybe it is better to let them rot in their own filth rather than try to resurrect and revitalize a corpse?

Regardless of Musk's true intentions, something needs to change dramatically when it comes to Big Tech and social media in the west. These companies live on our tax dollars and government incentives and yet they get to enjoy the protections of limited liability and the auspices of "private businesses." They are publicly funded in many respects, but they claim the right to censor whoever they wish for any reason they wish. Any business that tries to directly compete with them is crushed, either by collusion between multiple corporations or collusion with governments. This is the epitome of monopoly and the complete opposite of free markets.

If Musk can throw a monkey wrench into the existing system then I hope he's successful; the majority of the public is on his side if that's the case. There is also the possibility that he is helping Twitter to survive. Even support from Vanguard, Blackrock and the seventh circle of hell has not been able to keep Twitter from going down the tubes, but the branding and personality power of Musk could keep the company alive.

My point is, if the leftists want to keep their favorite platform they will need Musk to do it. And beyond that, conservatives and moderates should also not put too much faith in any billionaire to accomplish a sea-change in social media. We are already winning by simply not playing the game. If Musk brings down or upends Twitter, great. If not, it's no loss. Just let them continue to crumble.

To truth and knowledge,

Brandon Smith