Friday, July 2, 2021

The Biden Administration’s Domestic Terrorism Strategy Threatens to Criminalize Conservative Speech and Thought



On his first day in office, President Biden initiated an unprecedented review of U.S. government efforts to counter domestic terrorism. This review has now resulted in the first-ever national strategy to combat domestic terrorism.

The National Security Council document, entitled the National Strategy for Countering Domestic Terrorism, notes that “domestic terrorism can take many forms, inspired by a wide range of violent ideologies.” It emphasizes that “the definition of domestic terrorism in our law makes no distinction based on political views—left, right, or center—and neither should we.” And the document thus pledges “to confront domestic terrorism regardless of the particular ideology that motivates individuals to violence.”

Despite these assurances, nobody on the political Right genuinely believes that the National Strategy for Countering Domestic Terrorism will be implemented in an “ideologically neutral manner” as the Biden administration promises.

When it comes to political neutrality, the National Strategy has already gotten off to an inauspicious start. As everyone knows, the immediate impetus for the counterterrorism review was the January 6 unrest at the Capitol. Democrats have been smart to draw maximum attention to this tragic day and interpret it through the prism of “terrorism,” because we know from the political science literature on terrorism that terrorist activity tends to backfire politically on the perpetrators by eroding popular support and strengthening the executive to crush dissent.

To help depict the events of January 6 as terrorism, Democrats and their anti-Trump media allies have repeatedly promoted the misimpression that the perpetrators killed somebody. The New York Times reported on January 8 that Capitol officer Brian Sicknick died in the melee from getting “struck with a fire extinguisher.” This account of his death was then cited in House Democrats’ February trial memorandum to impeach former President Trump.

Throughout the impeachment, Trump’s political enemies—from CNN to MSNBC, to the Lincoln Project, to Nancy Pelosi—emphasized that the January 6 attack on the Capitol was a terrorist incident that killed Officer Sicknick. Even after the official medical examiner concluded in April that Sicknick died from natural causes, President BidenMSNBC, and CNN have continued to promote the politically self-serving fiction that he was killed in a terrorist attack. Side with the medical examiner and you are branded a January 6 “truther.” By mischaracterizing Sicknick’s cause of death as terrorism in defiance of the scientific assessment, Democrats have not only cynically weakened right-wing groups, but laid the foundation for rooting out Trump supporters in the name of counterterrorism.

The policy document itself belies the expressed goal of ideological neutrality. The preface lists only examples of attacks by far Right perpetrators—specifically, the ones in CharlestonPittsburgh, and El Paso. Ironically, there is no mention anywhere in the document of the April 2 Capitol attack—which did in fact kill an officer—presumably because the perpetrator was a follower of Louis Farrakhan, the leader of the Nation of Islam. While whitewashing such recent terrorist attacks from the Left, the counterterrorism document explicitly identifies “racially or ethnically motivated violent extremists (principally those who promote the superiority of the white race) and militia violent extremists…as presenting the most persistent and lethal threats.”

This notion that the far Right poses the greatest domestic terrorist threat accords with other recent assessments by the intelligence community. But the domestic strategy is not actually limited to counterterrorism. In Pillar Two of the document, the authors acknowledge that the goal is to “prevent individuals from ever reaching the point of committing terrorist violence.” The document elaborates: “While those who break the law in furtherance of domestic terrorism must face investigation and prosecution for their crimes, it is equally important that the Federal Government engage in efforts to prevent individuals from being drawn into the grip of domestic terrorism in the first instance.”

As others have noted, the new plan is for the government, along with private industry especially in the communications sector, to confront the root causes of politically motivated violence and “focus on behavioral indicators toward radicalization” for “inoculating the public against extremism” and “preventing radicalization in the first place.”

In other words, pre-terrorists—not just terrorists—are the target of this counterterrorism strategy. How, exactly, they will be identified and treated is unaddressed. But the implication is that some individuals, especially on the political Right, will draw disproportionate government scrutiny and possibly be targeted even in cases where they do not use violence or otherwise break the law. As the Center for Strategic and International Studies points out, this broad conceptualization of the domestic threat will likely be “controversial” because of the danger to civil liberties, particularly on the political Right.

The nation’s domestic strategy appears to recognize the enemy as extremists more broadly and not just those engaged in terrorism or other unlawful acts. But when asked to specify how it will interpret “extremism,” the government has demurred. If the government fails to restrict its actions to countering violent offenders, the post-January 6 strategy will feed the impression that the Biden administration is simply using counterterrorism as a political cudgel. And ironically, such illiberalism is associated with more—not less—terrorism.


Questions Need Answering in the Shooting of Ashli Babbitt, and Trump Just Asked a Big One

 

AP Photo/Andrew Harnik
Nick Arama reporting for RedState

In every case in which there is a police shooting, I always counsel to wait for the facts.

Even if you think you know from an immediate witness statement or video, it’s always good to get all the facts, in order to be able to properly evaluate the shooting.

That’s assuming you can get the facts.

In the case of the shooting of Ashli Babbitt during the Capitol riot, we’re missing some pretty big facts. Perhaps chief among them is who shot her.

That question got even bigger Thursday, after President Donald Trump issued a message, asking simply: Who shot Ashli Babbitt?

The reason we don’t know is that the Capitol Police aren’t subject to FOIA requests and they’ve refused to reveal the name. In any other similar situation, we would have had the name long ago. Now, there’s lots of speculation, as we’ve noted before, as to who it might be. But, bottom line, the Capitol Police are not being transparent about it.

We should be told, and we should be able to have more facts than we’ve gotten so far. Unfortunately, because the facts are not more forthcoming, we are left with asking questions and trying to piece together video to get answers.

Some critical questions here. Where were the lawmakers when the officer fired? Also, the officer who shot had to know there were police on the other side of the door, as well as any number of other people in addition to Babbitt, but he fired essentially into an area where there was a crowd of people. Minutes before the shooting, three officers who had been standing across the doors, blocking the entry into the House Chamber suddenly move away from the door.

It’s at that point the rioters who had been stopped at the door decide to try to get in. Those officers do not restrain them and then leave. What looks like a congressional staffer is still there. And that’s when Babbitt is shot, trying to climb through the window in the door into the House chamber, as more tactical police officers have just come up the stairs.

I talk a little more about the sequence of events, because video shows something important: what appears to be the lawmakers leaving.

Here’s The NY Times video that describes them as leaving.

This is a more complete, WaPo video which shows the full sequence of events. In this one, the rioters say the lawmakers are leaving.

You hear some of the protesters say, to the cops blocking the doors, they don’t want to hurt the lawmakers, they just want to get inside. None of the people who are there attack the police who are blocking the doors, although there’s a little bit of bumping and a lot of yelling. You hear John Sullivan and others shout “gun” when they see the officer’s gun. But everything is so loud, Babbitt may not have heard it.

What you can see clearly in the following video is that the hallway the officer is in is empty, except for the officer and what appears to be about three other officers. The lawmakers are gone;, if that was them leaving on the earlier video, as the New York Times said, by the time of the shooting, they’re no longer there.

That might also explain why the three officers who were standing across the doors suddenly move away from the door. Did they leave the door, once told the lawmakers were out, so it was no longer necessary for them to be there? Although those officers leave, the Congressional staffer is still there, as are other protesters, as well as about four police in tactical gear who just came up the stairs.

Warning: very graphic.

Here’s another sad observation. Had the officer who shot waited another few seconds, the cops in the tactical gear who just came up the stairs likely would have been there to stand across the door and/or would have ushered the rioters out, as indeed they do after the shooting, making people back up.

But, it’s long since time that we get the answer not only to Trump’s question but a broader response on the facts surrounding the shooting in general. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is all about having a ‘select committee’, but how about a little response on some basic questions?

Defund the FBI


Republicans need to abandon their 
longtime,  reflexive  loyalty to the FBI.


It’s been a gold star week for the men and women of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Nearly six months after the events of January 6, the FBI, under the direction of Joe Biden’s vengeful Justice Department, is accelerating the nationwide manhunt for anyone involved. Since June 23, agents have arrested 17 people from Florida to California. Charges range from assaulting police officers and criminal trespassing to something called “destruction of property in special maritime and territorial jurisdiction and aiding and abetting.”

The dragnet is part of the nonstop campaign of terror unleashed by the Biden regime against the political Right. Attorney General Merrick Garland, who compares January 6 to the Oklahoma City bombing and Capitol protesters to terrorists, pledged the “Capitol breach” probe would be his top priority. Garland last week bragged in a press release that his department reached the “benchmark” of arresting 500 people and warned he would “hold all January 6 perpetrators accountable” for their actions that day. His prosecutors routinely ask the courts to keep the accused behind bars awaiting trials that won’t start until late this year or perhaps even 2022; dozens have been held for months in a D.C. jail that specifically houses January 6 defendants.

FBI Director Christopher Wray, despite assurances his agency treats all protesters the same regardless of partisan affiliation (LOL), is happy to assist Garland in his mission. Wray insists “domestic violent extremists”—code for Trump supporters—pose the greatest security threat to the country.

The Elderly Menance

His agency has been on a tear of late. One of the dangerous perpetrators captured by the FBI this week is Lois Lynn McNicoll, who was arrested in California on June 28. McNicoll, 69, is a Los Angeles County public employee; the FBI was tipped off by one of her co-workers.

As is often the case, McNicoll talked to Special Agent Daniel Dale without an attorney present. (Many January 6 defendants have cooperated with the FBI under the presumption they did nothing wrong and wanted to help the agency catch the real bad guys.) Dale “interviewed the defendant at her place of employment in a non-custodial capacity,” the agent wrote in McNicoll’s criminal complaint. “The defendant was informed that any participation was voluntary and that she was free to terminate the interview at any time. The defendant affirmed that she understood.”

So, what did this alleged domestic terrorist do? A little before 3:00 p.m. on January 6, McNicoll entered the Capitol building through an open door. Surveillance video captured by the U.S. Capitol Police security system—more than 14,000 hours of footage to which only the government and a few congressional committees have access—shows McNicoll taking a few photos inside the building. After being ushered out of the building by police, she exited the complex about 30 minutes later.

McNicoll didn’t vandalize anything, she didn’t steal anything, she didn’t attack anyone. It’s not even clear whether she spoke to anyone; it appears as though she went in the building alone.

But Dale claimed there is “probable cause” to conclude McNicoll committed at least four federal offenses during her half-hour “crime spree.” This includes trespassing and “willfully and knowingly . . . utter[ing] loud, threatening, or abusive language, or engage[ing] in disorderly or disruptive conduct, at any place in the Grounds or in any of the Capitol Buildings with the intent to impede, disrupt, or disturb the orderly conduct of a session of Congress.”

For this, McNicoll will have her reputation destroyed and her finances depleted. She probably will lose her job. Presumably, this gratifies the rank-and-file of the FBI, who can pat themselves on their backs for ruining the life of an American citizen on the wrong side of the political aisle.

“So Shaky She Can’t Hardly Talk”

The FBI conducted a pre-dawn raid at the home of three January 6 suspects on Wednesday. Neighbors told WFLA-TV reporter Staci DaSilva they were awakened at 5:30 a.m. by loud “boom” noises and FBI agents shouting on loudspeakers outside the home. One man recorded the raid on his phone and said he thought the FBI used flashbang devices during the raid. “It was like maybe 5:30 or so. I jumped up and grabbed a gun because I didn’t know what was going on,” he said.

Video later showed several FBI agents taking items out of the home and placing them into large government vehicles. A family member of the accused told DaSilva she was “so shaky she can’t hardly talk.” One of the men arrested, a paramedic with Polk County Fire Rescue, will be fired. 

There are countless similar stories. I wrote last week about the arrest of a Florida pastor and his son for their alleged involvement in the January 6 protest. Neither is accused of committing a violent crime, but the son was arrested by the FBI in front of his three-year-old daughter.

While the U.S. southern border remains wide open for drug and human smugglers and neighborhoods in inner cities resemble Third-World war zones each night, the country’s top law enforcement agency, with an almost religious zeal, is hunting down sightseeing grandmothers, disabled veterans, and other Americans. There’s even valid speculation the FBI isn’t just working this operation from the outside but from the inside, too.

Do You Trust the FBI? 

A few days ago, I spoke to the spouse of a January 6 defendant who has been in jail for months awaiting trial. She told me about the FBI raid of their home, which occurred at 9:30 p.m. on a Sunday night in front of their young child. (American Greatness is concealing their identities to minimize the risk of reprisal.) 

Twenty agents showed up with weapons drawn to arrest him and ransack the house. She was taken into a separate room—the couple did not ask to have an attorney present—where she was interrogated by three FBI agents. They asked her who they voted for and which political party they identified with. The agents grilled her about what news channels they watched and their views on immigration, including the border wall.

She was asked if they followed QAnon. (The FBI has given lawmakers a report titled “Adherence to QAnon Conspiracy Theory by Some Domestic Violent Extremists,” which claims the “participation of some domestic violent extremists (DVE) who are also self-identified QAnon adherents in the violent siege of the US Capitol on 6 January underscores how the current environment likely will continue to act as a catalyst for some to begin accepting the legitimacy of violent action.”)

The FBI agents asked her if she belonged to a group such as the Oath Keepers or Three Percenters. She told me she had no idea what they were talking about.

“Obviously it was stupid to talk to the FBI, but we’re not criminals, we weren’t hiding anything, [and] I knew he did nothing wrong that day,” she told me by text. “I’d like to think I answered their questions wisely and honestly but now I realize . . . how they turn everything against you. Most of the questions I answered I don’t know or I can’t remember. I feel so stupid!!!”

She shouldn’t feel stupid for cooperating with a powerful government agency entrusted with tracking down real criminals, as opposed American citizens who did nothing wrong on January 6. The only people who should feel stupid are the FBI officials and agents conducting this destructive farce disguised as a legitimate investigation.

Republicans would do well to abandon their longtime, reflexive loyalty to the FBI. With all the talk of defunding the police, it’s clear the nation’s most powerful police department is a threat to civil liberties and the rule of law. Maybe it’s time to defund the FBI.


Facebook To Provide Pop-Up Warning When Your Friends Begin Thinking For Themselves



MENLO PARK, CA—Facebook has introduced a new feature that will warn you when one of your friends is sharing free and independent thoughts on its network. 

Should you encounter an unapproved opinion, Facebook will provide a pop-up warning letting you know that if you're concerned about a friend expressing opinions derived from free thought that is not in line with big tech companies, major corporations, Hollywood, universities, or the government, you can get them help.

The social media platform will allow you to take steps to report people who are sharing unapproved opinions. You may report them to Facebook, who will reach out to them to help them by forcibly sending them to a Facebook reeducation camp.

"Yes, the camp is mostly brainwashing," Mark Zuckerberg admitted, "but the food is pretty good. They serve mac and cheese with the little cut-up hot dogs in there every Tuesday. Plus, we've got one of those big inflatable launcher things out on the lake, which you can use to relax and launch each other into the water. It's a ton of fun. If we kidnap you and take you to our camp, we guarantee you'll love hanging out there on the lake."

"Once you finish your reeducation sessions, of course."


Gleichschaltung and American Marxism

 

 

Dachau


Article by Milli Sands in The American Thinker


Gleichschaltung and American Marxism

Gleichschaltung.

Huh?

Gleichschaltung is a German word that means (meaning "coordination,"  "making the same," "bringing into line." It was the Nazi policy enforcing political conformity in all sectors of society.

Gleichschaltung comprised:

1. Distorted, manipulative language intended to confuse; think Ministry of Propaganda in 1984. (e.g., infinite genders, or Global Cooling begetting Global Warming begetting Climate Change)

2. Media conformity with totalitarian postures. (e.g., Big Tech, Brownstream Media, i.e., CNN/MSNBC/CBS/NBC/ABC/WaPo/NYT/NPR)

3. Controlled interpersonal communication, e.g., politically controlled jargon. (Politically Correct language, cancel culture)

4. Manipulating the population to the point that it can no longer distinguish truth from lies. (Fake News and per AOC, “We’re going to have to figure out how we rein in our media environment so you can’t just spew disinformation and misinformation.”)

5. Banning the expression of conventional religious viewpoints. (e.g., Little Sisters of the Poor. See also Hobby Lobby and Chik-Fil-A.)

6. Re-educating students in the ways of state philosophy. (Critical Race Theory)

7. Rewriting history (e.g., 1619 Project, removing/demolishing statues, the Rotunda is racist, renaming schools)

8. Scientism -- the twisting of the scientific method to support the political agendas of the party and/or special interest groups. (e.g., Green New Deal)

Sound familiar?

Here is another place you can play this game. View this presentation at Prezi. Substitute “Democrats/Progressives/Democrat Socialists” for “Nazis” and “Hitler.” Substitute “America/Americans” for “Germany/Germans”

Sound familiar-er? 

As an independent, I am open to hearing all sides. I have listened and I have heard what the positions of the current regime are. They appear, to me, to be heading in the direction of a knowable, predictable, logical conclusion.

We have the record.

It is documented in In the Garden of Beasts by Erik Larson (of The Devil in the White City fame). Thus far, it is the best book chronicling the current administration that I have found. This book says it better and more comprehensively than I believe I can. Coincidentally, it demonstrates how remarkably a country can change in a mere four years.

(And, in case anyone is interested, the best history that I have found of the prior Democrat regime is Allen Drury’s Come Nineveh, Come Tyre -- although the book arguably has a somewhat happier ending.)

If you checked the copyrights, you are perhaps wondering how two books that antedate the respective administrations could be such accurate histories. Easy. If you consider the work of the great sci-fi writers (and others) as the history of the future, it all makes sense. For example, neither Musk nor Waymo came up with the idea of an autonomous car. This is true for many other “projects of tomorrow.” In fact, one could probably say with some accuracy that the entities making “the future” happen today just accomplished the technical innovations that reified other people’s ideas.

Mark R. Levin has a scheduled book release for July 13. On its Amazon page, his newest effort, American Marxism, is described thusly:

American Marxism, Levin explains how the core elements of Marxist ideology are now pervasive in American society and culture -- from our schools, the press, and corporations, to Hollywood, the Democratic Party, and the Biden presidency -- and how it is often cloaked in deceptive labels like “progressivism,” “democratic socialism,” “social activism,” and more. With his characteristic trenchant analysis, Levin digs into the psychology and tactics of these movements…

Knowing “core elements,” “psychology,” and “tactics” is all well and good.

What is not mentioned is an exploration of the process used, i.e., Gleichschaltung. Maybe he will deal with it, maybe he won’t. Either way, Larson’s book, heavy with citations and documentation from original sources, can only add to what you might read in Levin’s book. It will tell you what occurs in real life when Gleichschaltung happens. It serves this function well as a standalone read.

American Marxism? Probably.

American Gleichschaltung? Definitely.

One would do well to get up to speed on Gleichschaltung, because the administration is flooring it.

 

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2021/07/gleichschaltung_and_american_marxism.html





Don't Forget to Recommend
and Follow us at our

W3P Homepage


Biden Executes Perhaps the Most Pathetic Brag in Presidential History

Bonchie reporting for RedState 

I’ve written several times in the last few months about the skyrocketing inflation that middle America is enduring right now. The costs on some of the most commonly bought items have jumped, including food, building materials, used cars, and of course, gasoline and other types of energy.

With that very negative news really setting in with voters, the Biden administration has decided to go on the offensive. In doing so, they’ve executed perhaps the most pathetic brag in presidential history.

There’s a lot to unpack here, and we can begin by asking whether this is even true or not. I’m not sure how the Farm Bureau calculates prices, but anyone that’s been to the grocery store lately is going to be highly skeptical. There’s also the consumer price index to look at, which shows that prices are up across the board.

In all cases, it appears food prices are up across the board. Is the Biden administration using some kind of adjustment to account for what would be a normal expectation of inflation? I don’t know, and I’m not sure it matters. Even if what they are saying is true, it’s clearly in contrast to the overall inflationary woes the country is dealing with right now. I mean, who brags about saving people 16 cents?

I think the bigger story here is that the White House has clearly gotten the message – people are tired of the inflation and are blaming Biden for it. In fact, there was a recent poll that showed 60% of respondents blamed increased government spending in Washington (i.e. the “America Rescue Plan”) for the big jumps.

This weird attempt at turning the tide on the negative perceptions is obviously a reaction to that. Yet, I’m not sure there’s anything effective about fluffing numbers that may or may not even be true in order to tell people they should be thankful for their extra 16 cents. It makes Biden look even further out of touch.

There’s really no escaping the political costs of the current inflationary cycle. Unless it is brought under control, and there’s little sign that’s going to happen soon, people are going to put the blame where it belongs – with Joe Biden.


The Media's Collapsing Trust


 

Article by Tim Hall in Townhall


The Media's Collapsing Trust

If someone inside the American media elite were tapped to deliver a State of the Media address in front of a distinguished audience, they would not be able to claim that their position is strong, stronger than ever.

Sadly, a new survey by the Reuters Institute found the United States ranks last in media trust -- at 29% -- among 92,000 news consumers surveyed in 46 countries.

There are several easy answers for why this is true. But the most obvious one is the media's dramatic tilt to one side of the political argument. For many years, the Republicans attempted to reply with polite rebuttals, never failing to concede the old media's role as a referee of the democratic system. Then in 1996, the Fox News Channel challenged the dominance of the liberal establishment. It made the press look more liberal and less authoritative. They've never stopped hating Fox for that.

The media's overt celebration of the Clintons and then, even more fervently, the Obamas, made it apparent that any notion of fairness and balance had been shredded and burned. By the middle of the Obama era, Republican candidates were learning that bashing the press was an obvious way to boost their popularity. Their voters no longer wanted to show respect to media outlets that showed them no respect. The media divided into reinforced silos. Opinion was king.

By 2015, all the Republican candidates were trashing the press in debates, as the debate "moderators" trashed the Republicans in return. Strangely, the media briefly became the wind beneath Trump's wings -- but only until he had vanquished all the other GOP contenders. That became just another episode in the extreme cynicism of the press in trying to manipulate the election, and it failed spectacularly when Hillary Clinton lost.

Throughout the Trump era, the media relentlessly campaigned to remove him from office as quickly as he could be. When impeachment failed, they relentlessly politicized the coronavirus pandemic, shamelessly accusing the president of killing hundreds of thousands.

When George Floyd became a household name and a cause celebre, the liberal media sided with rioters and eviscerated police officers as guilty until proven innocent. They touted a "racial reckoning," where violence in the streets was blurred into "mostly peaceful protests" against alleged oppressors, soaked in "white privilege."

Today's radicalized youth also disdain the press as completely untrustworthy because they haven't been revolutionary enough. They aren't fierce enough in destroying capitalism, or defunding the police and the immigration enforcers, or emptying the prisons. They are still enablers of "systemic racism." Because journalists care more about the opinions on the left than they do about the American "middle," we can expect them to keep attempting to shuffle further toward this extreme.

Building trust cannot coincide with more crusading for "social justice." People don't trust referees who have always wanted to be players. People can't trust moderators who refuse to restrain their ideological urges and sound moderate. People shouldn't trust questioners who are more interested in generating the hostile "gotcha" or the friendly fist-bump than an honest answer.

To build trust, the media would have to act like trust is their goal, not just an entitlement.

They would have to act as moderators on behalf of all the people, just not their half. Nobody can be optimistic that they would accept this assignment.

 

 https://townhall.com/columnists/timgraham/2021/07/02/the-medias-collapsing-trust-n2591930


Don't Forget to Recommend
and Follow us at our

W3P Homepage


Do You Hate Big Tech? Me Too. Here Are Some Alternatives

If the left is willing to threaten a boycott against companies 
deemed evil over politics, will the right sit back 
and mumble about free markets or build their own?



Polling today regularly shows Americans not only maintain high distrust of Big Tech, but seek more regulation of it and view such platforms as doing more harm than good. Given how Big Tech has continued to censor conservative voices, including former President Donald Trump, Americans dissatisfied with their self-infatuated overlords are exploring alternatives.

There is a reason the companies in power have been successful: Not only were they some of the first in the industry, but their platforms are remarkably advanced and user-friendly. Any company that has became categorized as “Big Tech” has done so by raking in billions and providing users with experiences that keep them coming back.

While people may be reluctant to jump ship after years of interaction on certain platforms, and certainly some are banking on Congress to take action on their behalf in the years ahead, here are several options for right now. After all, if conservatives wish to genuinely engage in the culture war, it’s time to build and support infrastructure not operated by people who hate us.

“The biggest corporations in America are unabashedly letting ideology run their business,” Rachel Bovard, senior director of policy at Conservative Partnership Institute, told me. “It is more important than ever for conservatives to build our own market and business infrastructure, and to support the small businesses in this space.”

“However, it is equally important for conservatives to push policymakers to address anti-competitive market distortions where they exist, to make sure that conservative startups and businesses get the same rights in the free market as everyone else,” she added.

If the left is willing to threaten a boycott against non-leftist companies while deplatforming normal people, will the right sit back and mumble about free markets or build their own?

From Amazon to Your Community

Federalist Publisher Joy Pullmann wrote about her experience migrating away from Amazon back in March. Joy mentions alternative options, such as buying directly from suppliers and from family-owned businesses you know are run by good people.

What stuck out to me most in Joy’s article is the importance of buying local. Given the level of decay occurring in communities across America, supporting your neighbor and building in-person relationships is vital. We often overlook the abundance of products within just miles of us in exchange for immediate gratification online — which only lines the pockets of corporate executives and, oftentimes, corrupt Chinese interests.

Amazon may offer ease of ordering, but at the costs of supporting Chinese child and slave labor, the destruction of the American worker, and the idea that the U.S. should build a foreign trade empire that works for everyone except the American worker. Joy writes:

I needed to adjust to paying people an American living wage for their hard, high-quality labor, just as I want to be paid a family-sustaining wage for my labor. The money saved from buying less cheap Chinese crap that kids break quickly was redirected into our food budget. I like living this way for multiple reasons—less waste and consumerism and higher quality of fewer goods chief among them. The taste and health benefits are clear as well.

From Twitter to Parler

Parler struggled with user interface and accessibility before Amazon Web Services refused Parler service, knocking it offline for a short period. However, with a new CEO months after its relaunch — and a fresh perspective on the importance of aesthetic as much as functionality — Parler has a lot of potential. The new landing page is easier to navigate and less intimidating. It pops out more visually.

“Free speech is written into the DNA of Parler, and that’s the whole reason we started,” CEO George Farmer told Fox News host Maria Bartiromo this week. “It’s our corporate policy that we do not sell your data. Most firms out there will happily sell your data and happily exchange it for cash.”

Taken at his word, Farmer’s platform sounds appealing. Twitter, for one, is constantly censoring content and failing to explain why. Twitter also has a record of selling tweets to data miners. The company openly admitted in 2019 to using account data for advertisement campaigns.

Parler still has ways to go with branding itself as more than just a political website and offering features that rival Twitter, but building digital infrastructure that the establishment vehemently opposes has to start somewhere.

From Google to DuckDuckGo

Google censors speech by shadow-banning those deemed unclean, removing advertisements from websites, blacklisting search results, and much more. Talk show host Bill Maher had a great segment last week on how the company immorally took steps to censor content related to the COVID-19 lab-leak theory.

DuckDuckGo, which I can vouch for based on daily use, is a valuable replacement tool. Whereas Google hides conservative content or does not display it front-and-center during a basic search, a more organic DuckDuckGo search turns up a variety of viewpoints and ideologies. The search engine employs no social engineering based on your previous searches and does not use targeting or profiling.

Privacy is a major benefit of DuckDuckGo. It prevents search leakage, which means private websites will not be able to access your user info and IP address via prior searches. No cookies are collected on the search engine, which are text files with data that identify your specific computer to a given network. Plus, there are no advertisements.

Not only does Google expose you to many privacy risks, but the company frequently expresses and embeds in its products animus towards people who don’t fully abide by leftist orthodoxy. The company is now in the process of suggesting gender “inclusive” spelling changes on its Google Docs platform — such as “mail carrier” instead of “mailman” and “chairperson” instead of “chairman.”

From Facebook to MeWe

MeWe made waves with Hong Kongers in November 2020 upon citizens searching for an alternative to Facebook that permits free and open discourse. It was started in Albuquerque, New Mexico as a way to channel “the spirit of our democracy and the backbone of our privacy” amid increasing Big Tech censorship.

The company operates chat rooms and forums, and allows people to list events and create or join pages. For instance, there is a Babylon Bee page for fans to coordinate and discuss all things related to the outlet.

Christian Toto, editor of Hollywood in Toto and a MeWe account user who left Facebook, told me he has enjoyed his experience. But he has also found the platform a bit overly political.

“I joined MeWe primarily due to Facebook’s obvious corruption, both in silencing conservatives and hiding inconvenient news stories,” Toto said. “MeWe, on the surface, is a very viable platform. It’s Facebook-like in a good way, and it didn’t take long for me to feel comfortable using its tools.”

“What I’ve found, though, is mostly hyper-partisan posts without the apolitical content that makes Facebook so enjoyable,” he added.

Bottom Line

Platforms such as MeWe, Parler, Rumble, Clouthub, and so on are inevitably quite political right now, as Toto noted. When it is one demographic of people overwhelmingly being targeted on Big Tech, these people need to go somewhere to have a voice. Right now, the suppressed voices are largely those with conservative ideas, but as the deplatforming of self-described liberals like Dave Rubin and Bret Weinstein shows, it’s not stopping there.

The hope is that in addition to political discourse transpiring on these new and emerging platforms, there will be opportunities for a broad array of discussions on anything people would typically engage in on Facebook, Twitter, and others. The more people join, the more that will happen organically.

Right now, there is technological infrastructure building on other platforms that wholeheartedly foster free speech. There are many opportunities to embrace this and push the framework further to bring more culture in. Each person who joins helps that process along.