All dictatorships of the past century have followed a generally predictable pattern of events. Almost all totalitarian governments have been inspired by the ideology of the political left. These include the ever-increasing size of government, socialist control of resources, the merging of bureaucracies and corporations, demands for “social justice,” collectivist propaganda, and the abandonment of individual merit for the good of society. For the sake of the nation and the “greater good,'' it is the adoption of Marxism, which includes culture as well as economy, and finally futurism.
In my opinion, futurism is the key to all modern authoritarianism. This is the philosophy that has existed at the birth of nearly every major autocratic government in recent memory, and is the root of today's leftist ideology. Futurists argue that most of history is dead. They believe that all notions of heritage, the lessons of the past, the ideals and principles of their ancestors are irrelevant.
Futurists believe that nothing is sacred and that every new idea is better than every old one. Therefore, they argue that societies that cling to (or preserve) old ways are hindering human progress and must be dismantled. In other words, those who promote or defend traditional norms must be silenced in the name of “progress.”
I suspect that most people reading this at least intuitively understand the terrifying nature of this belief system. The very structure of futurism is based on a lie: the idea that all change is good, and that any repression carried out in the name of change is justified.
process of oppression
In this process of oppression, there is usually a phase of escalation. The first step is to exploit existing social divisions to create an enemy that the rest of the population can be convinced to rally around. This is not to say that these divisions are not legitimate. They often do. In our era of “multiculturalism,” globalists have brought into the West many groups of people who are completely incompatible with Western values and morals. They will not assimilate and will only cause conflict. That is the very reason political puppets continue to open borders.
These divisions can be exploited to create conflict and chaos, and governments can use this as a pretext to suppress political opponents. In the United States and the European Union, conservatives are the people who are defending their countries' historical ideals and have been labeled public enemy number one. We are the ever-present bogeymen of the 21st century.
It's not just about preserving the heritage and principles that helped create the greatest civilization in the history of the world (Western civilization). It's also because we keep talking about inconvenient truths.
Futurists rely on disinformation to spread their utopian philosophy and can only continue to survive by silencing all other contradictory ideas. All futurist regimes ultimately rely on mass censorship in order to function. They must keep people in eternal darkness because they cannot stand in the light of truth.
Slowly at first, then all at once…
Many readers will argue that we have been at this stage for decades. I'd like to argue that we haven't seen anything yet. We have lived only under secret censorship. Pandemic lockdown efforts were a turning point when Democrats and big tech companies began openly demanding counterintelligence, but most of that censorship was still under the table.
Meta CEO and Facebook Creator Mark Zuckerberg recently admitted The Biden administration has reportedly been behind the scenes pressuring Facebook to censor information about the coronavirus that contradicts the government's narrative. This is highly unconstitutional and criminal. Biden and Harris should be impeached, and in my opinion, those involved should be sentenced to prison. Will that happen? Probably not.
This type of censorship is insidious, but manipulating algorithms to hide search results or banning people from social media is no different from enacting laws to intimidate or punish those who speak out. It's not the same. That's the stage we're in now. The era of public mass censorship has arrived.
In Brazil, left-wing authoritarians shut down Elon Musk's X (formerly Twitter) after Musk refused to implement a censorship model on his social media site. To Musk's credit, he has remained true to his principles even at the cost of losing Brazilian business.
Developments in the UK are also a blatant example, with the government now seeking to hunt down and imprison people for the most minor offences. A British teenager was recently jailed for two years for a single crime. flying the British flag Near the mosque. Anyone who opposes multiculturalism (and futurism) risks being arrested and caged.
British authorities say Elon Musk should be charged And they argued that other Americans who promoted conservative values on immigration or made claims in support of the British protests should also be extradited. We're just pointing out that there are only two paths to this. Either the British people will rise up in rebellion and violently overthrow the globalist puppets of their own government, or they will become slaves living in fear within their own country.
All this drama over basic free speech rights sounds really crazy, but this is the world we're approaching now, and the left is happy to support the transition.
Massive censorship is an inevitable path to rebellion
Rootstock/Getty Images
Mr. Musk has said that he believes Company X will eventually be shut down in the United States if Kamala Harris becomes president in the November election, and I would agree. Look at what the establishment did to social media newcomer Parler when it started gaining traction. The elites simply cut off Parler's ability to function effectively on the web and grow its user base. Under a Harris administration, they will be encouraged to go further.
The Democratic Party's argument is very clear. They oppose free speech and view certain ideas as threats to society.
For example, the far-left New York Times Article published This article gave credence to large-scale censorship, including the Brazilian government's decision regarding X. The article highlighted the benefits of giving Brazil's Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes sweeping online censorship powers, describing the move as “an effective solution to a vexing rights problem.” -Gives wings to threats to democracy. ”
While the Times article stops short of institutionally endorsing Company X's censorship, and even asks whether perhaps Brazil has gone “too far” (obviously the answer is yes), it also addresses this trend. suggests that this is the “new normal.” Big tech companies will be forced to respond in the future. And the article suggests that if Mr. Musk wants to counter government censorship demands, he should do so through civil courts rather than directly resisting such tyranny. In other words, Musk has no right to fight them.
Rebellion does not require permission to rebel
The New York Times also had a lot to say about the issue of freedom and the U.S. Constitution in an article titled: “The Constitution is sacred, but is it also dangerous?” The Times once again tried to link the events of January 6th to the need for censorship, citing an attempted “insurrection” in which no one was armed and no one was killed except for one conservative protester. is promoting false reporting.
The danger of the Constitution, the Times argues, is that it gives people the freedom to vote for someone like Trump, an act that could overturn the Constitution itself.
The real irony is that Trump's popularity would not exist without the political left's constant attempts to build a socialist dystopia that erases the Bill of Rights. Nothing happens in a vacuum, and these people never take responsibility for their actions. They spent three years ignoring the Constitution in the name of medical authoritarianism over a virus with an extremely low median infection fatality rate of just 0.23%. Then they started gaslighting the public about how conservatives were a threat to democracy.
I would argue that this is not the new normal. That's a recipe for war in the United States, Europe, or both. Globalists are well aware that an uprising is coming, but I don't think most leftists really understand how much danger they are putting themselves in if they continue down this path. It's not going to work out for them.
What is rebellion? everytime In the minds of the elites. In a sense, they want it, but they want it in small doses that are easier to manage. They want a “terrorist” enemy that they can use to intimidate the population into supporting martial law, but what happens if too many of the population joins the rebellion?
What globalists and the left are really afraid of is a large-scale uprising that they cannot control, one that could end up being limited to the elites. They will do anything to avoid widespread revolution, so they are willing to risk opening up mass censorship even today. They know what will happen and are working to mitigate the spread of anti-globalist views as much as possible before things get out of hand. I think it's already too late for them.
The version of this work was originally alt-market.us.
