Two of the most notorious bigots in the House of Representatives signed a letter to Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg demanding that he “eradicate anti-Muslim bigotry from Facebook”.

The three-page letter signed by Rep. Ilhan Omar, Rep. Rashida Tlaib, as well as 28 other left-wing House members, spends a great deal of time demanding the removal of what it calls "anti-Muslim content" without ever specifically defining it. That's convenient considering Omar and Tlaib's own history of racism and antisemitism, and support for the sorts of Islamic bigotry and violence that groups like CAIR, which supports the letter, have become known for.

The letter spotlights one violent incident, but then goes on to call for a ban on "anti-Muslim content", "anti-Muslim animus", "anti-Muslim bigotry", and finally, "anti-Muslim content and organizing" on the platform, without ever explaining what exactly they want to ban.

Considering the letter’s call for, "100 percent proactive detection and removal of anti-Muslim content", the safe assumption would be that they want to ban everything critical of Islam.

That's a disturbing attack on the First Amendment coming from 30 House members.

Democrats have repeatedly pressured Facebook and other social media companies to remove speech they politically disapprove of, whether by President Trump or other conservatives, eroding the thin line between private companies acting on their own initiative and government officials conspiring to violate the First Amendment by banning certain kinds of political speech.

After multiple hearings, legal proposals, and legislative threats, it’s no longer possible to view Facebook’s censorship of political speech as anything other than government censorship. When enough pressure by government officials has been applied to a company to censor certain kinds of speech, the company’s decision to censor speech becomes government censorship.

30 House members would now like Facebook to censor criticism of Islam and political protests against Islamic terrorism. One of the few examples of anti-Muslim content in the House letter was a political protest against the Islamic Society of North America’s 2019 conference.

That was the conference which included an appearance by two Democrat presidential candidates, Bernie Sanders and Julian Castro, whose forum was moderated by Salam Al-Marayati, the head of MPAC, who had defended Hamas and Hezbollah. Also participating in a round table at the conference was Imam Siraj Wahhaj, an unindicted co-conspirator in the World Trade Center bombing, who has defended the Islamic mandate to kill gay people.

This is the sort of information that AOC, Omar, and 28 other House Democrats, want banned.

House Democrats trying to shut down protests targeting their own candidates is a blatant violation of the First Amendment which was meant to prevent exactly that kind of thing.

And the party of social justice wants to stop Americans from protesting against an Imam who says things like, ”Brothers and sisters, you know what the punishment is, if a man is found with another man? The Prophet Mohammad said the one who does it and the one to whom it is done to, kill them both.” What happens when ‘anti-Muslim content’ meets anti-gay content?

The 30 House Democrats don’t want to talk about any of this which is why their letter doesn’t.

Even Omar and Tlaib can’t quite openly call for blasphemy regulations for social media, but they conveniently leave terms like “anti-Muslim content” undefined and then demand that Facebook outsource the suppression protocols to "senior staff focused on anti-Muslim bigotry issues" backed by diversity training on "civil rights issues and common words, phrases, tropes or visuals used by hate actors to dehumanize and demonize Muslims".

And if that's not enough, there's an independent third-party review of Facebook’s compliance.

CAIR and other Muslim Brotherhood groups would be brought in to define what “anti-Muslim content” is and then senior staff, approved of by CAIR and its allies, would set moderation policies to suppress “tropes” used by “hate actors” like Jihad, Sharia, Taqiyya, and terrorism.

Cartoons of Mohammed, mentions of blasphemy, hate, and terrorism would all be censored.

It's not hard to spot what sort of content they're after.

The House Democrat blasphemy and terror letter has been endorsed by CAIR and the Islamic Networks Group, but beyond these traditional Islamist groups, it has the backing of pro-terror groups like Code Pink and JVP, and assorted anti-war organizations. These groups are less concerned with blasphemy, but very focused on preventing America from fighting terrorists.

CAIR had demanded the removal of Mohammed's image from the Supreme Court, and more recently compared magazines publishing cartoons of Mohammed to ISIS. A board member of the Muslim Brotherhood group had insisted that, "[t]he right to free speech is not absolute."

The Founding Fathers and the Constitution disagreed.

The letter also cites a Muslim Advocates report which listed examples of "anti-Muslim content" that they wanted Facebook to censor that included President Trump's call for a ban on migration from Islamic terror nations, and a Trump campaign ad which described AOC, Omar, Tlaib, and Pressley as socialists who had made "anti-Israel, anti-American, and pro-terrorist remarks".

AOC, Omar, Tlaib, and other Democrats have signed a letter demanding that Facebook censor political speech critical of them. That’s a grotesque assault on the First Amendment.

Another example of “anti-Muslim content” from the Muslim Advocates report was an Israeli Facebook user who had written negatively about Omar, Trudeau, and Corbyn.

Omar responded to this by ranting that "foreign interference – whether by individuals or governments – is still a grave threat to our democracy” and that “malicious actors operating in a foreign country, Israel”, were “spreading misinformation and hate speech to influence elections in the United States." Even though there’s no evidence that elections were actually influenced.

But, once again, the kind of “anti-Muslim content” that Omar and her political allies seem to want to ban involves criticism of her and of them. The “grave threat” here is coming from Rep. Omar.

The letter claims that its signers also want Facebook to remove “any hate content directed at a religious or ethnic group”, but Rep. Ilhan Omar, one of the letter’s signers, has been the House’s worst offender, tweeting antisemitic content, including her infamous “Benjamins” tweet.

If House Democrats were serious about removing hate, they would have removed Rep. Omar.

Facebook already engages in extensive monitoring and censorship. This isn’t about taking down bigotry, but about removing political speech and content that Islamists consider blasphemous. It’s also about suppressing the political organizations that combat Islamist hate and violence.

It’s no coincidence that the type of political speech that Omar, Tlaib, Carson, and other House members want to censor casts a negative light on their own political alliances with Islamists, their bigotry, and their ugly views. And they would like Facebook to do the censoring for them.

The more Democrat officials lay out the kind of censorship they would like internet platforms to perform, the more the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech becomes a dead letter. And this letter, signed by 30 House Democrats, is a new threat to our freedom of speech.

America does not have blasphemy laws. And politicians are not allowed to ban speech they don’t like. The letter to Facebook makes it more urgent than ever that our elected officials find ways to protect the marketplace of ideas from political censorship by Democrats and Facebook.

Google's YouTube announced that “supporting the integrity" of the election required it to censor anyone alleging that "widespread fraud or errors changed the outcome of a historical U.S. Presidential election".

By historical presidential election, Google meant this one. Democrats are still free to allege that they would have won in 2000 or 2016, if it hadn’t been for the chads or the Russians.

A huge tech monopoly closely tied to the Democrats, which was sued by the Trump administration over its illegal abuses, censoring critics of the Democrat election fraud is protecting and supporting something alright, but that thing is very definitely not integrity.

Election integrity, like fact checking, is one of those curious terms whose meaning was ‘Orwellianized’ in the last decade. Fact checking used to mean media organizations checking their facts before they published a story. Now the media has mostly done away with internal fact checking and uses fact checking to describe its efforts to censor conservative media.

Election integrity traditionally meant verifying the integrity of the process, but is now being used to mean silencing anyone who questions the integrity of the election. In both cases a term that meant protecting the integrity of an internal process has been turned inside out to mean covering up for the corruption of the internal process by censoring its outside critics.

That’s the new integrity.

At last count, 72% of Republicans, and 1 in 3 Americans, don’t trust the election results. That means silencing a hundred million people to protect thousands of election workers.

Protecting the integrity of the election means clean voter rolls, voter IDs, and elections that take place under predetermined rules put into place by state legislatures. It does not mean telling critics that pointing out the lack of integrity in the election is a threat to election integrity.

The threat to election integrity is coming from inside the system.

One basic difference between free and unfree societies is that free societies have internal checks and balances, while unfree societies only have external ones. A free society assures the integrity of its elections and its facts by keeping its facts and elections open to examination, while an unfree society protects its processes against outside criticism by threatening its critics.

American elections now happen under the grim shadow of networks of organizations that vow to “protect election integrity” by making sure that Americans aren’t “misled” by “disinformation”.

Typical of these is the Election Integrity Partnership, funded in part by billionaire Biden donor Craig Newmark, which predictably claimed that “election disinformation” was coming from Trump supporters. Its list of “repeat offenders with large audiences” consists entirely of Trump supporters. Calling people you disagree with “repeat offenders” is typical of the lefty discourse that criminalizes dissent by describing opposing views as “disinformation” and then an offense.

It's easy for conservatives to laugh off such corruption, much like Poynter's Craig Newmark Center for Ethics and Leadership being embedded in the fact checking machine, whose head also doubles as NPR's public editor, but legally treating lefty views as embodying truth and facts and conservative views as representing disinformation has serious consequences.

Even beyond YouTube and social media censorship in the marketplace of ideas.

The entire election integrity industry whose work involves closely monitoring political speech by ordinary people is operating under the theory that the biggest threat to elections comes from people. The Democrat obsession with Russian bots in the last election was almost wholesome compared to their current obsession, not with bots, Russian or otherwise, but with Americans.

Election integrity now means a stasi-like focus on identifying and punishing public speech. The threat, as in most totalitarian societies, was never really from outside: it was from Americans.

In 2020, Dems mostly ceased pretending that the issue was bots or foreign agents, instead the election integrity industry amplified by the media claimed to be very worried about people sharing “disinformation”. Big tech firms approached the election boasting about their massive effort to stem all the “disinformation” in order to protect the integrity of the election from people.

But if people can’t be trusted to discuss political issues, how can they be trusted to vote?

Our elections are only as free as our ideas are. Any system that doesn’t trust people to debate ideas isn’t about to trust them to actually make the decision about implementing those ideas.

The suppression of questions about the integrity of the election is the best reason to question it.

A free liberal society defines integrity as the integrity of the process while illiberal ideologues define it as the integrity of the outcome. The shift from the integrity of process to integrity of outcome has destroyed the integrity of most of the country’s institutions and the public’s trust.

The highest principle of integrity of process is sticking with the facts and following the rules, but integrity of outcome’s only principle is a cause so righteous that none of the rules matter.

Shifting from process to outcome led to a media that was not just biased, but that has zero regard for the facts or the truth, but insists that it’s right because it has the right principles. This preference for picking the outcome you want and then forcing the process to follow pervaded not just the media, but every political and many of the non-political institutions in American life.

That corrupt willingness to dispense with the rules is why so many question the election.

In the last four years, conservatives have witnessed a string of government officials coming forward to undermine a sitting administration, while others leaked from behind the scenes. Before the election, Democrat state officials in charge of the election vented their hatred for President Trump on social media while promising that a Biden victory was forthcoming.

Now some of those same officials are furious that Republicans are challenging the integrity of the elections they supervised. Guns don’t kill people and elections don’t defraud themselves.

Tech companies and the media have reduced the election to a sacred idea whose integrity may not be challenged, but Republicans aren’t challenging an idea: they’re challenging public officials. And tech companies stepping in to protect “election integrity” are not, at this late date, preventing voters from being “misled”, but protecting the officials they support from scrutiny.

Only unfree societies protect the integrity of public officials from the outrage of the public. And only a corrupt oligarchy selectively intervenes to protect its officials in the name of “integrity”.

Election integrity isn’t achieved by suppressing criticism of election officials. That is how you get corruption. And how conspiracy theories, right or wrong, are spawned on an unprecedented scale. Real integrity comes when public officials are held to a high standard by the public.

Free countries can have contested elections. Unfree ones, by definition, can’t.

Contested elections are healthy things. As long as you contest them the right way. Throwing around accusations of election fraud is as American as apple pie. Even most liberal historians agree that there were at least two “historical” presidential elections, as Google puts it, whose outcomes were corruptly determined. And a number of others were legitimately in dispute.

The unhealthy way to contest elections is accusing the winner of being a Russian spy, and launching investigations of him and his associates based on that smear. That’s how elections are contested in places like, well, Russia. Just make sure to substitute American for Russian.

The oligarchy has spent every minute since the election crying that contesting an election is illegitimate, a threat to what it calls “democracy”, and must be stopped to save our country.

Free countries aren’t that fragile. Unfree ones are very fragile.

Every time you hear another media screed about the threat posed by “disinformation”, you’re hearing an admission that their rule over this country is totalitarian and very fragile. And when you hear them lecture about the need to protect “election integrity” by suppressing critics, you’re hearing an admission that they rig elections whenever they can and are afraid you’ll find out.

Any faction that spends this much time protesting its integrity, doesn’t have any to protest.

When California store owners turned to voters to criminalize shoplifting again with Proposition 20, they never had much of a chance once Patricia Quillin threw in $2 million against them.

When Quillin paid $1 million to support Proposition 16, Asian-American opponents of the proposition, which would legalize racial discrimination against them in the form of affirmative action, protested outside her husband’s job. Her husband is the CEO of Netflix.

Netflix doesn’t have to worry about shoplifters and doesn’t care about the stores that do. Quillin and her husband, Reed Hastings, who are white, also don’t have to worry about college admissions. Quillin’s Meadow Fund has poured money into various forms of pro-crime advocacy and the Netflix CEO’s wife claims to be very engaged with “racial justice”.

Even though Quillin and her husband live in Santa Cruz, she poured $1.5 million into the campaign to elect George Gascon, a Soros backed pro-crime DA candidate in LA. That’s along with the $4.5 million spent on funding various destructive propositions that hurt Californians.

Patricia Quillin is part of a fundraising phenomenon: the Woke Housewives of Silicon Valley.

MacKenzie Scott, the former wife of Amazon CEO and Washington Post owner Jeff Bezos, divorced him when his cheating scandal was exposed, and cashed in with a massive settlement. That money, from making warehouse workers pee in cups, made her one of the wealthiest women in the world, and she got woke and began making everyone else get woke.

Every time another small business goes under, Scott gets richer from her Amazon shares. And that money is used to bankroll radical political agendas. Or, as Scott put it in the inevitable Medium post, “opportunities that flowed from the mere chance of skin color, sexual orientation, gender, or zip code may have yielded resources that can be powerful levers for change.”

Despite her aspirations, Scott may be a terrible writer, but she could throw $1.7 billion at radical groups, including to the Movement for Black Lives, an umbrella group that incorporates the violently racist Black Lives Matter Network linked to nationwide riots, and which supports BDS.

Scott was funding the racist movement destroying small businesses and making her richer.

Like Quillin, Scott is insulated from the negative consequences of her political activism, but not the positive ones. The destruction of small businesses has little impact on a streaming platform like Netflix and is a net benefit for Scott and her Amazon stock. Every time another store went up in flames, her ex-husband’s empire expanded leaving her with more money and power.

The Woke Housewives of Silicon Valley, whether or not they actually live there, have amassed enormous wealth with little responsibility or understanding of how the people they hurt live.

Scott has confined her $1.7 payout to identity politics and other causes that don’t touch on the sources of her wealth. In all her vast scope of institutional giveaways covering everything from lesbian rights to illegal migrants to Indian organizations, she isn’t funding any kind of workers' rights group whose advocacy would affect Amazon, its share price, and her net worth.

Another of the biggest woke housewives of Silicon Valley predates digital parvenus like Netflix and Amazon. Laurene Powell, the widow of Apple boss Steve Jobs, may not have as much money to burn as Scott, but her Emerson Collective has $1.8 billion in assets and a woke creed.

“I am doing this in honor of his work,” Powell claimed of her husband, but Jobs had no interest or involvement in politics. When Powell urged Jobs to meet Obama, he showed little interest, resulting in a five-day protocol standoff. The actual meeting led to Jobs blasting Obama over regulations and teachers’ unions, and telling him, “You’re headed for a one-term presidency.”

Powell isn’t spending her husband’s creative capital for him, but for her own lefty politics.

After her husband’s death, who had reportedly been a Reagan voter, Powell brought in a gaggle of Obama and Clinton operatives and staffers, and began building a radical political machine, pouring millions into Democrat political operations like Emerge and Priorities USA.

She’s a major funder of the pro-crime Marshall Project and has written editorials advocating for illegal migrants who, much like Apple’s China production, deprive Americans of jobs. One Emerson Collective fellow advocates for freeing criminals to “protect” them from the pandemic: a policy that has resulted in a horrifying year of nationwide murders, rapes, and robberies.

None of this is likely to affect Powell, who bought a 19th century mansion for $16 million in San Francisco's Russian Hill after her $60 million Paradise Cove Malibu estate burned, and had another mansion under construction in Silicon Valley. Cynics might speculate that the illegal aliens on whose behalf she spends so much time advocating might be helping lower costs.

Powell’s big corner of the sky is media, buying The Atlantic, and funding lefty publications like Mother Jones. Her Emerson Collective, a “social change organization” invests in Axios, and funds the Now This spam factory whose lefty agitprop is ubiquitous on social media. Emerson backs the Texas Observer, a lefty non-profit that advocates for illegals as a “newspaper”.

And she appears to have gotten even more explicitly into the fake news game by channeling money into ACRONYM, whose fake news site operation is controversial even on the Left for its sleazy strategy of creating lefty sites that pretend to be local news organizations.

While Quillin, Scott, and Powell are billionaires, not all the woke housewives of Silicon Valley can command billions. Some, like Karla Jurvetson, are mere millionaires.

When Democrat dot com donor Steve Jurvetson was caught up in rumors about extramarital affairs and sexual harassment, Karla dumped the Tesla board member and Theranos backer and took her money to militant ferminist organizations and the Elizabeth Warren campaign.

In 2018, Karla made it to 11 on the list of top federal donors, one space ahead of Scott's ex, Jeff Bezos. She donated $5.4 million in Baidu stock, a Chinese company entangled with the Communist Party, to Emily's List. Then she cut a $100,000 check to buy Elizabeth Warren the DNC voter file (split two ways to bypass FEC limits) and keep her message of socialism alive.

Karla ended up funding Warren’s Super PAC to the tune of $14.6 million. (You may recall that Warren hates Super PACs, but that’s just a reminder not to believe a single word she says.)

While funding Warren was a waste of all that Silicon Valley wealth, Karla invested over $1 million into Stacey Abrams’ Fair Fight PAC voter fraud machine, which paid off in Georgia. And Karla, as Stacey’s biggest donor, may have gotten more done than Scott, Powell, or Quillin.

At least Karla didn’t send any Chinese Communist stock to rig the Georgia election.

Karla Jurvetson lives in Silicon Valley, not Georgia, but the one constant of the Woke Housewives of Silicon Valley is that they use their massive wealth to wreck other places, states they don’t live in and communities they don’t visit, to scold them for their political incorrectness.

The world, they think, ought to operate according to their politics and propriety, and they spend their money bullying, bribing, and funding the identity politics that play on their emotions.

Wokeness is a movement of white women who lack any sense of meaning or purpose. Devoid of religion and placing little value on family connections, they derive their worldview from the substitute religiosity of the old Marxist tropes about the oppressed and the oppressors, alternately thrilling and fulminating over the plight of illegal migrants and criminals, bleeding with empathy for transgender illegal alien serial rapists and Black Lives Matter rioters.

Meanwhile they carefully ignore the moral questions raised by the sources of their wealth.

Interviewers know to ask MacKenzie Scott about how hard it is to be a black man in America, a subject that she knows as much about as the topography of Mars, but not what it feels like to be an Amazon warehouse worker peeing into a cup to make her another twenty billion dollars.

They’ll ask Patricia Quillin about the same subject, a topic she knows even less about, but not about Netflix’s promotion of teenage suicide and pedophilia. And the resulting teen suicides.

Laurene Powell will be asked about the plight of illegal aliens, not of the employees at the companies that make Apple products committing suicide in droves.

Wokeness forgives a multitude of sins. Throw billions at race rioters and criminals, at illegal aliens and random identity politics causes, and you never have to look too hard in the mirror.

Unlike real religion, wokeness permits the lefty super-rich to evade a moral reckoning with their sins, using the rest of the country as scapegoats, punishing Asian-American students, shop owners, families living on the border or in ghettos, workers in the Rust Belt, for their own crimes.

The Woke Housewives of Silicon Valley are wrecking America in between chardonnay breaks. But there isn’t enough chardonnay or enough billions to escape the moral reckoning of the wreckage.

Of the 10 wealthiest men and women in America, 8 of them made their money in the tech industry. Of these, only 3 made their fortunes from companies that predated the internet era. The rest made it the 'new-fashioned' way, by developing and deploying internet platforms.

The great disruption of the internet made college dropouts into the wealthiest men in America, made the West Coast, for the first time, the equal of the East, and transformed the economy from manufacturing tangible items to reselling access to data and outsourcing manufacturing.

The men of the great disruption were libertarians, if not necessarily by politics then by cultural inclination. The original disrupters had been engineers and hackers who didn’t fit into conformist environments like IBM and were chasing the dream of doing their own thing. They set up shop in garages and basements, in small California, Oregon, and Washington towns, and a few cities, dressed casually, watched Star Trek, dreamed utopian ideals, and were bad at business.

The new disrupters were less interested in hardware or software applications than in using the power of the network to suck up the data of our interactions and turn it into a service. Their insights, building a search engine around link popularity, or a college face book by grabbing pictures of women, might be trivial, but were part of an emergent vision of the new data order.

The original disruptors had been concerned with empowering the end user to command the system, but the new disrupters were reversing the process that had taken users from terminals to personal computers, instead reducing a multitude of devices to terminals leaking data that made them easier to profitably manipulate. The early internet was empowering, but the internet of the Google, Amazon, and Facebook era is disempowering by design. It works by limiting your options and then using what it knows about you to push you in the direction it wants you to go.

Early computers had practically demanded programming skills. The new setup programs you.

As companies went public and college kids became billionaires, they stopped being disrupters and became concerned with maintaining the new order that they were building.

Every revolution ends with a pledge to make sure that no other revolution will happen again.

Google, whose empire was built on search because Yahoo, Netscape, Microsoft, and an array of other companies that allowed it to disrupt its way to power had failed to account for the importance of search, has spent a generation working its way from inside out, by building a browser and then an OS and devices, so that no upstart can do to it what it did to the industry.

The Google vision of its devices running its operating systems with its browser and search boxes built in is not disruptive: it’s the creation of a monopoly built to prevent another Google. Search, the core of Google’s business, is its worst maintained because having monopolized it, its focus is on expanding its hegemony outward to the farthest limits of the data economy.

The same is true of other Big Tech titans who exploited a niche, disrupted the existing setup, and then transformed their companies into the very thing they had been struggling against.

The Big Tech challenge was to manage the essential disruptiveness of the industry, stabilizing their power base, while finding other vulnerable points in the country to disrupt. And when there were fewer economic vulnerabilities to disrupt, they turned to the cultural and the political ones.

Like every past ruling class, the new one set out to remake the country in its own image by disrupting other sectors of society, some, such as politics, consciously, while others, such as culture, unconsciously, out of noblesse oblige, lust for power, and a sense of insecurity.

Every previous national transformation had come from ever narrower areas of the country and the great disruption had been the narrowest yet. The old visionary ideas of computer literacy, long since an outdated term, had given way to ‘learn to code’ as an obsolescence taunt. Most Americans would not be included in the revolution, not because they couldn’t be, but because the revolution was far too small to encompass more than a fraction of the population.

The economic momentum of the new disrupters was built on stock booms that were powered by the conviction of investors that these new titans would keep on growing until they took it all over. If investors thought otherwise, there would be 5 or 8 other wealthiest men in the United States. The vast frontiers of the computer revolution had passed through the range war stage and were gated off by giant monopolies using investor cash to strangle each other and their industry.

Compared to the challenge of disrupting the old economy, disrupting politics appeared simple, but the problem was that, unlike computers, the disrupters were also the thing they were disrupting. Society had no artificially neat separations between man and machine, code and flesh, and the disrupters were amplifying a cycle of disruption that was also disrupting them.

Big Tech had worked to exercise political power to stave off the very reaction it was inciting.

The disrupters turned leftward because from the commanding heights of the economy they tended to see society as a machine that was broken and needed fixing. Having few political ideas of their own, they adopted the leftist politics of their surrounding environment. Its reduction of society to a machine and men as moving parts in need of balancing out appealed to them.

The old disrupters had seen men and women on their own terms, struggling to reach their dreams, but that perspective, from the ground level of the world, had been lost to them.

The new disrupters could only envision their kind of world, diverse, urban, and with a mostly useless population whose grievances and inability to contribute to the new world order would have to be met with welfare checks and patient lessons on the dangers of intolerance.

And, most of all, control.

The original computer revolution had been built on freedom, but the titanic internet platforms depended on control. The control was meant to be unseen. The user would be manipulated into thinking it was his idea to click on that link, watch that show, search for that keyword, and buy that product by a series of invisible constraints and prompts to maintain the illusion of control.

The illusion of control, the myth of user agency, was at the heart of the new internet of platforms. The end user had never had less control over his virtual environment, even as it assured him that he could do anything he wanted. Once the user rebelled against the algorithm, the illusion of freedom collapsed leaving a choice between obedience or loss of access.

The system seemed to work as Big Tech amassed vast amounts of wealth and power, but on a social level, it was a disaster, albeit one that was invisible to the manipulators. In the tech industry, the engineers often don’t understand the end users. And vice versa. And the old conflict over system design was now playing out on the vast scale of human civilization.

The disrupters had broken the economy and the social system, and began trying to put it back together on their terms, buying up the media and elections, censoring the platforms they had built, bringing to an end the last of the open information frontier, and building a new order oriented around the technocratic imperatives of managing a global society. But the more they tried to control the human element, the more the societies began to fall apart and turn on them.

Greater control did not lead to greater trust, but an almost incoherent mistrust in which conspiracy theories became the one thing that everyone was coming to believe. The theories were mostly wrong, but in their own inchoate way, they were right because there was a loss of freedoms, because most of what the media broadcast was a lie, and there was an agenda, and though many of the conclusions were wrong, they were reacting to a real loss of agency.

Conspiracy theories thrive when people lose control over their lives, but can’t localize the blame. Big Tech built the conspiracy theories that it keeps trying to rein in by conspiring to control the public without understanding, as most tyrannies don’t, that it is the cause of its own problems.

The disrupters envision a society of useless people with few functions except binging Netflix originals and commenting on photos on Facebook to be subsidized with welfare checks so they can pay their subscription fees, click on ads, and buy Chinese junk from Amazon. But a welfare state is a signal that there is no future and it’s time to fight over the scraps that can be seized.

There’s no better formula for racial tensions, street violence, and bitter multicultural infighting than the combination of a welfare state and diversity. American diversity worked to the extent that there was upward mobility. When social mobility stalled, as it occasionally did in cities, brutal violence soon followed by people who had nowhere to go and nothing to live for.

The disrupters had wanted to find a middle ground short of full Marxism, but instead they were propelling the conditions for both leftist radicalism and a rightward reaction, while striving to hold on to their power and remake the world along the lines that they thought were best.

Their disruption of politics, childishly simple for men and women with enormous wealth and data insights, who could find a dozen ways to hack a system, didn’t move the country their way, but oscillated it back and forth between the extremes that were breaking it. Trying to control the country, they were crashing it instead, because organic life reacts, instead of waiting for input.

Unlike computers, organic life isn’t passive. And people are the least passive of all creatures.

The men and women who had been disrupters wanted a predictable world they could control, but were instead bringing into being an uncontrollable world that was reacting to their efforts, as society often does, the way that a body’s immune system reacts to a viral infection. Society was responding to Big Tech’s efforts at control by raising the temperature to kill the controlling virus.

And in the process it was wreaking the kind of havoc on society that a fever wreaks on the body.

The great disruption had interconnected the world in unprecedented ways. This vast interconnection had made the world more efficient in some ways, at the expense of becoming more interdependent and more vulnerable to disruptions. The internet had been built, in its earliest days, to allow the command and control functions of the military to survive a nuclear war. But the extension of the internet into everything made society less likely to survive.

What had been a means to an end had become its own end. Being online had become its own purpose. Big Tech companies existed to furnish that world with convenient services. The old hacker dream of a digital polis had become real and in its realization had killed the dream. A wired society wasn’t utopia, but a dystopia throbbing with the raw nerves of a lost frontier.

The disrupter elite were the first to leave their own digital prison, keeping their kids away from the services that had made them billionaires, and trying to disconnect from their connections. They took up eastern philosophies, hiked, bought homes in the woods in different states, and tried to get in touch with something real only to find that they carried the unreality inside.

Power is a practical and a philosophical problem. The old disrupters had mastered machines and then come to think of the world as a big machine. The new disrupters had layered machiavellian interfaces over that old heresy, making a collectivist machine with a human face. But the human face was stuck in the uncanny valley, both real and unreal, and so were they.

The new disrupters had reduced all of society to interfaces, external visual inputs that had originally been meant to allow the user to manipulate the world within the machine, but that had been reversed and were being used by the machine to manipulate the user. And in doing so, they had made the world an unreal place and raised generations of users to feel manipulated by an illusory world, lashing out with the one thing that no machine could cope with, unreason.

The great disruption of machines was meeting at last the great disruption of man. And society was shattering in the collision between the real and the unreal. It is no coincidence that the acolytes of the disrupters have adopted science as their slogan. They often claim to follow the science or the data, as if these were oracles instead of ideas only as valid as their proofs.

Human beings need to believe in things and commit to things, in order to feel real. And the men and women who built an unreal world had come to believe in that world as its own moral order. The world of the disrupters is not a world of science, no more than a warlord with a gun is an engineer because his power comes from a mechanical device, but it is a faith in the source of their power. And that power is disruption. It can in the end, like a gun, only disrupt.

The unreal disrupters of the real strive for control, but their control is, like everything about the unreal world they made, an illusion. They can disrupt what is real, but like all the disrupters of ideas who came before them, all that they replace it with is an unreality that does not stand. The revolutions collapse and what comes after them is not the future, but the return of the past.

The first to call the presidential election for Joe Biden was AT&T.

AT&T, through its subsidiary CNN, one of the largest conglomerates in the world with a market cap of over $200 billion, billions of which come from lucrative federal contracts, was the first to claim that Biden was the winner. Beyond government contracts, AT&T has a major stake in the 5G wars and has spent a lot of money investing in the Biden campaign.

AT&T employees were the tenth largest source of contributions to the Biden campaign.

Biden had attended fundraisers at the homes of two AT&T lobbyists, but the ties run deeper.

Steve Ricchetti, Biden's former chief of staff, and longtime confidant, chaired Biden's campaign. AT&T has been the only corporate client of the Ricchetti Consulting Group for nine years. Ricchetti has deep relationships with both AT&T and Biden. And if Biden were to take over the White House, AT&T would have its man on the inside to protect its economic interests.

That’s crucial for AT&T considering how hard the Trump administration fought against the illegal merger of AT&T and Time Warner which ended up hurting consumers. AT&T’s future expansion plans require a compliant and friendly administration. And that’s just what Biden would mean.

When Democrats claim that CNN’s call of the presidential election is somehow binding, what they’re really saying is that AT&T should have the right to pick presidents favorable to it.

That’s not democracy. It’s oligarchy.

CNN’s bias is not accidental. It’s about the money. CNN, as an economic entity, was a key issue in the merger with the Justice Department urging AT&T to sell components of the merged company, including CNN, as a precondition for the merger. AT&T and its CNN subsidiary had economic reasons, not just political ones, to want Biden and Ricchetti in the White House.

After AT&T called for the election for Biden, Comcast claimed less than a minute later that Biden was the winner through its properties, NBC and MSNBC.

Comcast, like AT&T, has deep ties to Joe Biden and a deeper animus to President Trump.

Biden launched his campaign at a fundraiser at the Philly home of David Cohen. Cohen is a Senior Executive Vice President at Comcast, and a senior counsellor to Comcast's CEO.

Cohen, a powerful Philly Democrat official, named as one of the most powerful figures in the state, went on to reshape Comcast's lobbying operation. Comcast, under Cohen, spends $14 million a year lobbying in D.C. The Washington Post called him, "Comcast's secret weapon".

NBC was not a sideline to Comcast’s opposition to President Trump. Like CNN and AT&T, it was crucial to it. Comcast had swallowed NBC Universal and then went on to blatantly violate antitrust laws and its conditions for the merger.

President Trump had warned that Comcast "routinely violates antitrust laws". Comcast’s own expansion plans, after it lost Time Warner to AT&T, require Trump out of office. Its attempt to take over FOX’s entertainment properties (not including FOX News) fell through, and to keep growing it will need to keep acquiring content creators and cable providers. A merger with Verizon, the path to an even bigger nationwide monopoly, would be blocked unless Biden wins.

Brian L. Roberts, the CEO of Comcast and the son of the company's founder, was Obama's golfing buddy. Comcast execs and employees have been Biden's seventh largest career contributors and 94% of donations from Comcast executives have gone to Biden. Comcast employees were the seventeenth largest source of donations to Biden.

This year, Roberts announced that Comcast was plowing $100 million into various Democrat-allied organizations including Al Sharpton’s racist National Action Network, the NAACP, and the Community Justice Action Fund, a Tides Foundation project. CJAF is funded by corporations while closely intertwined with Democrat organizations and political agendas.

This isn’t just ideological spending. Comcast’s investments in Sharpton and other political organizations enlisted political support for grabbing NBC. When Roberts, Cohen, and Comcast invest in Democrats and left-wing organizations, they’re buying support for Comcast’s growth.

Despite all its social justice spending, the Trump administration caught Comcast discriminating against its employees in Philly, resulting in a settlement.

Comcast's expansion plans also include an aggressive push into government business. Last year it picked up BluVector in its search for cybersecurity contracts and created a federal sales division. Its big plans for federal contracts will work much better if President Trump is gone.

After CNN, a subsidiary of AT&T, and NBC and MSNBC, two properties of Comcast, targeting slightly different demographics, CBS News, or more accurately, National Amusements and Shari Redstone, called the presidential election for Biden. National Amusements employees directed their donations primarily to Joe Biden. More importantly, top CBS lobbyist John Orlando has been tipped for Biden’s short list to head the FCC. Along with Disney’s Susan Fox.

After AT&T, Comcast, and National Amusements picked Biden, Disney’s ABC News joined in.

Disney boss Bob Iger, who had considered running for president, was one of Biden's big donors, maxing out his donations to the Democrat candidate, and plowing $250,000 into the Biden Victory Fund. Abigail Disney, Roy's radical leftist granddaughter, kicked in another $50K.

Disney employees were Biden’s fourteenth largest source of political donations. And the company has significant ties to the Democrat infrastructure. Biden has longtime ties to Hollywood and has helped it broker deals in China. Disney’s big focus is on China. Its ability to release movies and maintain properties in the Communist dictatorship is crucial to its growth.

President Trump’s immigration policies and resistance to China was bad for Disney’s business. Disney’s reliance on replacing American workers with cheap immigrant labor and on dealing with China made getting him out of office vital to protecting its business model and its future.

Like AT&T and Comcast, Disney wants President Trump out, not for domestic or federal contract reasons, but to protect its economic dependency on Communist China.

After the oligarchy that is swallowing the economy made their call, the rest was anticlimactic.

The Associated Press, headed by Steven R. Swartz, the CEO of Hearst Communications, and Gary B. Pruitt, the former CEO of McClatchy, called it for Biden. Hearst is partnered with Disney.

Then FOX News, which depends on AP’s data, called it for Biden.

While FOX News describes its data set as the Fox News Voter Analysis, which sounds properterial, it doesn't come from FOX. Instead the FOX News Voter Analysis comes from AP VoteCast. AP VoteCast is actually a project of the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago. NORC is funded by the National Science Foundation whose directors are embedded for six years. As a result, France Cordova, an Obama appointee, held down the NSF for most of Trump's first term. That’s the origin of the data set FOX News used to make its calls.

But FOX Corp already made its call last year when it hired Danny O’Brien, Biden's former chief of staff and the head of his 2008 presidential campaign, as its head lobbyist. O'Brien went on working to help the Biden campaign while lobbying for FOX. That’s not an accident, it’s a plan.

After handing over most of its valuable entertainment properties to Disney, FOX Corp is a shell of its former self, but it still has entertainment and business interests beyond FOX News. What the Disney deal really meant was that FOX couldn’t compete with the monopoly bosses.

The real picture of the election and of the oligarchy can be seen in the order of Biden calls, with the biggest titans, AT&T and Comcast, getting first in line, followed by powerful, but more limited content powers like Disney and National Amusements, followed by dying organizations like the AP and FOX that have no future except servicing some of the big players in the new economy.

It’s not just about President Trump or the election. It’s about who runs the country.

The Democrats argue that when AT&T, Comcast, and Disney declare the election, that’s it. A handful of expanding monopolies can and should decide who’s going to be the president.

And the party of social justice and dirty cash is not even ashamed to make that argument.

America is not an oligarchy. Presidential candidates are not selected by a handful of lefty corporations or their media mouthpieces. The oligarchy has its fists clenched around the country’s neck. It has outsourced our economy, plundered our resources, and depressed the nation, while concentrating wealth and power in a few major cities and their suburbs.

The real question on the ballot was whether a handful of oligarchies should be running America.

When you look at the voting map, you’re not just looking at counties, but economic segments, some of which are incredibly wealthy because they’re concentrated around sources of government and corporate power, and others which are struggling to survive. The real poverty isn’t in the urban homeless encampments cultivated by Democrats, it’s in parts of rural America and the Rust Belt that are struggling to survive, but still working hard every single day.

President Trump won their support because he took on the oligarchy. Now the oligarchy is trying to crush him. And the Democrats insist that the oligarchy decides elections.

2020 will not only decide who sits in the White House next year, but whether AT&T, Comcast, and Disney decide who gets to occupy the Oval Office, or whether the American People do.

Long before, “In Soviet Russia, television watch you” became a staple of Cold War comedy routines, George Orwell’s 1984 novel had telescreens that broadcast propaganda and watched their citizens. Behind the satire is the core question of the struggle against Big Tech today.

Is technology going to be a tool of individual choice or social control?

Facebook and Twitter’s desperate attempts to block a damaging story about Joe and Hunter Biden is the culmination of four years of work to transform social media into the media. Under the guise of false claims about disinformation, foreign election interference, bots, networks, deepfakes, public health risks, and assorted tech paranoia, free speech died on the internet.


The moment when the White House Press Secretary had her account locked for tweeting a damaging news story about Joe Biden brought home the Big Tech reality to most Republicans.

Just like the media, Big Tech is the Democrat Party, and the Democrat Party is Big Tech. But, unlike the media, Big Tech controls the marketplace of ideas to an unprecedented degree.

Facebook controls 80% of social media and Google controls 80% of internet search traffic.

And that’s bad news because Democrats see the internet in the same terms as Xi, Putin, or your average dictator just about anywhere in the world, as a dangerous system spouting disinformation, damaging social ideas, and disruptive political rhetoric that must be controlled using a combination of economic and social pressures, along with government regulation.

Republicans and Democrats are both unhappy with the internet. Republicans are upset because there’s too much censorship and Democrats are upset because there isn’t enough censorship.

That Democrats, who once championed a free internet, now view it the same way all totalitarians do, speaks volumes not only about the death of liberalism but also about the transformation of the internet from a vox populi to a walled garden controlled by a handful of Big Tech monopolies whose cultural views and politics closely align with those of the Democrats.

‘Bigness’ has its own political and economic gravity. Big cities are more likely to have big governments and their inhabitants are more likely to vote for big government policies. They’re also more likely to use and generate the core companies and cultures that make up Big Tech.

The old political alignments based on questions of philosophy are being tossed aside and replaced with a new alignment based on the primevally simple questions of size and power.

The struggle is less defined by abstractions, than by the question of how much power you have.

In the Trump era, the more proximity to power you have, the more likely you are to be a Democrat, and the less proximity to power you have, the more likely you are to be a Republican.

The most striking thing about the Never Trumpers and the Rust Belt and Southern Democrats voting for Trump is how much power the former have and how little power the latter do.

Politics is being reduced to naked power.

Democrats shifted their stance on the internet because they gained control of core national institutions, in no small part through the growing fortunes pouring out of Silicon Valley which have tilted elections, financed political movements, and transformed public perspectives on social issues. And they are using their newfound power to do what the powerful always do, dismantle the safeguards of an open society so that there are no more threats to their power.

They’re doing this under the guise of fighting for equality and justice, and of waging a revolution for the oppressed, but so did most modern tyrants from Stalin to Hitler to Mao.

The Democrats are no longer interested in a free internet, for the same reason that they’ve tossed away free speech, the filibuster, or any institution or procedure that isn’t serving their interests this very minute. This isn’t due to a new progressive enlightenment, Republican obstinacy, grave new threats to democracy, or any of the other talking points they serve up.

The simple answer is that they won.

The Democrats of the 90s who welcomed an open internet were waging an uphill struggle against the open institutions of a generally conservative country. The country is now much less conservative, the institutions are much less open, and every major institutional force, from the biggest companies to the media, is unreservedly and uncritically backing them every step of the way, while suppressing any suggestion that they shouldn’t rule unopposed for all eternity.

All that’s left is collecting their winnings by shutting down the opposition.

Support for free speech is a matter of principle and practical politics. America was built on principle, but the Founding Fathers had a common-sense assessment of human nature. Free societies may be built on principles, but they survive through a balance of power. Every major faction must go on believing that it is in its interest to maintain free speech, checks and balances, and other protections against tyranny because it might end up needing them.

The Democrats have accumulated enough power that they no longer think that they need firewalls because if they play their cards right, the future, the right side of history, is their own.

That’s the fundamental development that explains the current crisis, not only of free speech, but of free elections, and a free country. The internet, like any society’s marketplace of ideas, is a symptom. Free countries have a robust marketplace of ideas. Unfree ones are obsessed with censoring speech and monitoring their citizens, all the while spinning paranoid fantasies about foreign interference, the threat of dangerous ideas, and the risk to political stability from speech.

Anyone who came out of a coma and spent an afternoon listening to CNN (owned by AT&T), reading the Washington Post (owned by the CEO of Amazon), and perusing the latest round of Democrat complaints about election interference and disinformation would know what we are.

The problem isn’t simply radicalism. It’s power.

Democrat radicalism isn’t being driven by the powerless, but by the powerful. That’s why Democrats with PhDs are more radical than those with a high school diploma. The problem of Big Tech can’t be separated from the problem of a political movement with too much power.

The culture of political censorship isn’t merely radical, it’s powerful. Cancel culture by college students or Big Tech censorship aren’t disparate phenomena, they’re the same phenomenon, often practiced on the same platforms by members of the same inbred ruling class.

America has been reconstructed to favor some classes at the expense of others. This new machine combining political institutions, activist groups, and corporations controls public life.

Conservatives can combat it or, like Soviet citizens, make jokes, and wait for it to collapse.

Big Tech is at the nexus of the political, economic, and cultural power of this new machine. That’s why breaking its power must be the objective of any winning conservative movement.

The massive monopolies control political discourse and as they tighten the noose around conservatives, political speech on the internet will consist of media narratives, a few tame conservatives, and little else. Imagine the high point of media dominance with no talk radio or cable conservative news. That’s the future. And it’s not going to arrive a year from now, it may already be here by Election Day. And if not, certainly when the next presidential election arrives.

But Big Tech also holds the key to the radical money machine. AOC and the Squad wouldn’t exist without a founding engineer from Stripe. The founder of eBay is responsible for everything from The Intercept to The Bulwark, the former is the media arm of the Sanders campaign and the latter of the Never Trumpers. The Washington Post was transformed from a fussy government paper into a den of furious radicals by the CEO of Amazon. Google money financed the Bernie Sanders campaign. Big Tech has poured a massive fortune into Black Lives Matter, from Steve Jobs’ widow, to Jeff Bezos’ ex-wife, to Jack Dorsey, the founder of Twitter.

And that’s the tip of the iceberg considering Facebook’s Chan-Zuckerberg Initiative.

The cultural power of Big Tech is even vaster. Google and Facebook determine what most people see on the internet. Amazon and Netflix are swallowing the entertainment industry. In a decade, a handful of vast, mostly, tech companies, Apple, Amazon, AT&T, Disney, Google, Netflix, and Verizon will control the culture far more than the old entertainment industry ever did.

By then it will be much too late to do anything except huddle in a few dark web outposts and mutter hate speech like the controversial words of the First Amendment.

If conservatives don’t fight Big Tech now, they will lose. And they will lose everything.

Big Tech’s power is growing exponentially, but it’s still vulnerable. The companies that will become immovable oligarchies in a decade can still be brought down and broken up. The internet and the marketplace of ideas can rise again from the ruins of those monopolies.

Now is the time. If we don’t fight Big Tech now, America has no future.

Last year, Amazon was forced to shut down its marketplace business in the People’s Republic of China. Amazon’s defeat followed that of a long line of Big Tech players who had tried to make a go of it in China and failed miserably. China’s economy is built to boost domestic businesses and foreign exports, with some needed imports, by companies linked to the Communist Party.

And no matter how politically correct Amazon may try to be, it can never join that club.

But Amazon’s business in China isn’t done. To a large degree, Amazon’s business is China. Behind the smiling logo, the massive array of businesses covering everything from running the CIA’s cloud to spending $500 million to make a Lord of the Rings streaming series, are a bunch of grim offices, apartments, and warehouses in Chinese cities that make up its real business.

Three years ago, third-party sellers topped Amazon's own sales. They now make up 58%. Who are they? If, like most Americans, you shop at the giant dot com retail monopoly, you’ve already waded through a stream of random shop names, fake misspelled reviews, and counterfeit products while searching for just about anything. What happened? China happened.

Between 40% to 48% of top third-party sellers on Amazon are operating out of China. The massive growth in Chinese third-party sellers has been fairly recent and transformative.

What Amazon Prime members are really buying is membership in a club that helps third-party sellers from China push counterfeit and imitation products to Americans. Amazon acts as a middle man, charging Chinese sellers and American customers for handling listing, shipping and sales..

The trade war between America and China began a year before Amazon shut down its local sales, but not its cross-border business. And that cross-border business is Amazon’s lifeline.

In 2013, Jeff Bezos, the CEO of Amazon, bought the Washington Post for $250 million. Bezos, at the time, lived in the other Washington. He wouldn’t add a D.C. home to his collection until 2016, and didn’t show it off until this year at a party attended by Bill Gates and Mitt Romney. Many wondered why Bezos had bought a D.C. government paper. Follow the money.

In 2014, the CIA announced a $600 million cloud contract with Amazon. Considering Amazon’s dependency on China, granting it that kind of access was an absurdly terrible idea. And yet, Amazon then went on to win a $10 billion military cloud contract that it has since fortunately lost.

Amazon’s federal contract revenues rose from $200 million in 2014 to $2 billion now. Much of that money flows to Amazon from that entity its boss’ paper calls the intelligence community.

Few have noted the curious triangle between the money flowing from the intelligence community to Amazon, and the Washington Post’s role in pushing supposed material from the intelligence community against President Trump, his trade war, and Amazon’s China business.

This doesn’t have to add up to some grand conspiracy, but the Washington Post’s owner has a vital economic interest in ousting Trump, and the paper has been doing that by serving up material from a branch of the government that its owner’s company does a lot business with.

Amazon is hardly alone among Big Tech companies in benefiting from Trump’s defeat.

It’s no coincidence that the Democrat nominee is a doddering hack best known for inappropriately touching women and building close relationships between certain American industries and the People’s Republic of China. The biggest Big Tech companies are driven by outsized stock prices and a high cash burn rate that can only be fixed by massive growth.

And that growth is dependent on China and on American trade policies.

Facebook is officially banned in China, but, much like Amazon, its business comes through the Communist dictatorship.

China is Facebook's second largest revenue source after America with $5 billion a year in ad revenue. And the social media monopoly which controls 80% of the social media market in America, keeps pleading and begging to be allowed back into China.

Why are Chinese companies advertising on a service that Chinese users are blocked from accessing through the Great Firewall? Some, like TikTok, which built its business through Facebook, are trying to reach American customers and then build their own ad business.

China is racing to build its own machine for directly reaching American customers. And once it has that, it won’t need Amazon, Facebook, or the rest of the tech traitors anymore. To paraphrase Lenin, the rope will have been sold and all that will be left are the hangings.

Like Amazon, Facebook is a one-way system for allowing Chinese businesses to take advantage of Americans. While US companies may not be allowed to do business in China, they’re happy to help Chinese companies do business in America. Or, as Facebook put it, it's "committed to becoming the best marketing platform for Chinese companies going abroad".

But it’s not just Chinese businesses using Facebook for ads: it’s also China’s regime.

Chinese state broadcasters like Xinhua spend a lot of money advertising their propaganda on Facebook. Some of that propaganda aimed at Americans explicitly attacked President Trump.

But China doesn’t need to resort to the crude measures of Russia’s Internet Research Agency.

Facebook, like most of Big Tech, understands that its future rests with China’s Communist Party. Its growth potential and a sizable amount of its revenues are tied to better relations with China. And for that to happen, Hunter Biden’s dad has to win and President Trump has to lose. And so the social media monopoly led the way in censoring a damaging story about Hunter Biden.

Like Facebook, Twitter is blocked in China. And, like its much bigger social media brother, Twitter makes a lot of the ad revenue for its shaky business model from China.

"Helping Chinese companies expand their visibility overseas has been one of the fastest-growing businesses for Twitter," a China Twitter executive claimed.

The so-called China Export Market has been driving Twitter’s ad revenues.

And, also like Facebook, it’s not just products that are being exported. During the Communist dictatorship’s crackdown on Hong Kong, Xinhua ran ads on Twitter defending the repression.

This wasn’t too surprising considering that Twitter’s first China boss had worked for the People's Liberation Army and then on a joint venture with the Ministry of Public Security.

After Twitter was shamed into pulling the ads, the Communist dictatorship threatened to cut off its ad revenues. The message was clear. China was in control of Twitter’s cash flow.

That’s why Big Tech companies can be banned in China and still be at its mercy.

The Communist regime controls a huge portion of their revenues and their future. A Big Tech company with no pathway to expanding in China won’t attract the investors to grow. That’s how China can make or break any of the Big Tech businesses it keeps dangling on its little finger.

The real foreign election interference is coming from China. Big Tech companies are just doing the dirty work of the Communist dictatorship. China’s Communist leaders don’t even need to say anything. The message is clear. The only way forward for them is through Joe Biden.

That’s why Big Tech is far more driven to defeat President Trump and elect Joe Biden and its election interference has become much more blatant than it was in the previous election.

It’s not just about the politics, it’s also about the money.

Big Tech companies are selling out our election to China the way they have our jobs. And their election interference is reaching unprecedented heights as they function like a cartel.

Twitter not only banned a story about Hunter Biden’s China ties, it ruthlessly suspended, blocked, and shut down accounts belonging to government officials and journalists, even as it promoted a counter-story from the Washington Post: a paper owned by Amazon CEO Bezos.

If you have Dove soap or Axe deodorant in your bathroom, Lipton tea or Breyers in your kitchen, you're buying Unilever products. The huge British-Dutch multinational made $60 billion last year and is known for its leftist politics. But Unilever may have gone beyond virtue signaling to election interference.

Unilever is one of the biggest foreign companies to join the Facebook boycott by leftist pressure groups.

The boycott’s goal is to suppress conservative speech on social media, especially by President Trump, before a presidential election, by convincing advertisers to withhold ads from Facebook until it complies. While Facebook already censors conservatives, it isn’t enough to satisfy the radicals running the boycott.



Rashad Robinson, the president of Color of Change, one of the leaders of the boycott made that clear in an editorial titled, "Will Zuckerberg dump Trump, or continue to serve him?"

"Facebook also loves its advertisers, and they are increasingly joining the boycott," he boasted. "So who will Zuckerberg choose?"

In an interview with the New York Times, Robinson emphasized that this was about the election.

"Honestly, there is an election and I need to get them to enforce the policies on the books before the fall. I need them to have some real rules around elections and voter suppression posts that actually will apply to Trump and other politicians so he doesn’t do anything dangerous on Election Day or before."

Robinson's examples of the kind of speech by President Trump that he wanted to pressure Facebook into censoring included, "claiming victory early".

The #StopHateForProfit campaign promoted by Color of Change, a radical leftist group, is blatant election interference. And it’s backed by huge foreign multinationals who are interfering in our election.

Unilever's own boycott post blatantly referenced the election, stating, "there is much more to be done, especially in the areas of divisiveness and hate speech during this polarized election period in the U.S".

A huge foreign company was pressuring Facebook to interfere in America's presidential election.

And it wasn't alone.

The Body Shop, a British company, also explicitly framed its boycott around the election, complaining that, "when we see the current dialogue in the US around anti-racism and equality, we continue to be concerned by the spread of hateful content and disinformation online, and the potential for this to affect the democratic right of Americans to have access to fair and balanced elections this fall."

Should foreign companies be allowed to intervene in an American election? Especially when that election has a potential impact on their bottom line?

Diageo, a British liquor company whose brands include Guinness, Johnnie Walker, Seagram’s, Captain Morgan, Smirnoff, and many others, announced that it would participate in the Facebook boycott while, continuing “to discuss with media partners how they will deal with unacceptable content."

The Trump administration has been considering new tariffs on European products from the UK, France, and Germany. The foreign firms joining the Facebook election interference boycott are primarily from these three countries. And, As Bloomberg noted, Diageo is one of the companies at risk if Trump strikes.

As is Pernod Ricard, the French company behind Absolut, Beefeater, Glenlivet, and Jameson, and which is also participating in the Facebook election interference boycott.

Some of the foreign companies that joined the #StopHateForProfit election interference campaign have direct or indirect financial interests that have been affected by Trump’s pro-American trade policies.

Honda had announced, “American Honda is withholding its advertising on Facebook and Instagram. We choose to stand with people united against hate and racism.” American Honda is just a subsidiary of the Japanese company. Its CEO, Shinji Aoyama, formerly headed the Asian Honda Motor Co.

The Japanese automaker has a direct financial stake in President Trump’s defeat.

The Trump administration had declared that car imports "threaten to impair the national security of the United States", and threatened to impose potential tariffs of 25%. After a trade deal, it appears that the Section 232 tariffs won't be imposed, but Honda's leadership is aware of the threat. And the Japanese company would be a lot safer if Trump were out of office. So would a lot of foreign companies.

Playstation, a Sony product, has announced its support for the #StopHateForProfit campaign. Another Japanese company, Konica Minolta, has also been listed as participating in the boycott.

Japanese companies should not be interfering in the next American presidential election.

Neither should German companies, especially those with a Nazi past, be lecturing Americans on racism.

Volkswagen, founded as a Nazi state-owned project dictated by Hitler which used slave labor during the war, issued an ultimatum, “Hate speech, discriminating comments and posts containing dangerous false information must not be published uncommented and must have consequences.”

That probably sounded a little less threatening and bellicose in the original German.

Much like Honda, Volkswagen has a stake in Trump’s defeat. President Trump has threatened to slap tariffs on European cars unless the EU drops its tariffs on American lobsters. A 25% tariff on European vehicles would add $10,000 to the cost of every car and hit German car companies really hard.

While VW is calling for “consequences”, the German company may be worrying about consequences.

Adidas and Puma, rival German companies founded by Adolf and Rudolf Dassler, members of the Nazi Party and suppliers to the Hitler Youth, who signed their letters Heil Hitler, joined the boycott.

Puma claimed to be, "part of an overall effort to create positive change and improvement in Facebook's platform by demanding the removal of inaccurate, hostile and harmful conversation," while Adidas called for, "a cosmopolitan and safe environment." VW and Puma had mentioned false or inaccurate comments which are euphemisms for censoring conservative political speech on social media.

Adidas and Puma neglected to sign off with the traditional “Heil Hitler” signature of their founders.

Foreign companies should not be joining a call by American leftist organizations to censor speech.

Henkel, the German company behind Persil, Dial, and Loctite, another former Nazi company that used slave labor, declared that it, "stands for tolerance, diversity and respect", and that it also expects "this attitude from all of our business partners around the world” as its reason for joining the boycott.

Next time you buy some Dial soap, think about where the German company really wants to stick it.

But it’s not just German companies.

The Lego Group, the Danish politically correct toy corporation, jumped on board the boycott, calling for an, "inclusive digital environment free from hate speech, discrimination and misinformation."

Lululemon, a Canadian company which got its name because its founder thought it would be funny to have Japanese people try to say it, and who endorsed child labor, claimed that it was, "actively engaging with Facebook to seek meaningful change." Perhaps it should start engaging with itself instead.

The Facebook ad boycott is election interference and while it’s bad enough that major American companies like Verizon, Best Buy, Target, and Starbucks are participating in this effort to silence their political opponents, foreign companies joining the election interference boycott is unacceptable.

While Democrats have been clamoring about foreign election interference, the participation of foreign companies in a boycott meant to silence Republicans, has their universal approval and support.

"We share the concerns of companies who are speaking up about Facebook's inaction around making meaningful changes that protects our democracy," Biden's spokesman said.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi went further, boosting the boycott even before it was officially announced.

“Advertisers have tremendous leverage,” she sneered. “I would say to them, know your power.”

Her comments, which came a day before the official election interference boycott, strongly suggest that she had early knowledge and may have been coordinating with the activists involved. The big question was whether Pelosi knew that the activists intended to involve foreign companies in their campaign.

If Pelosi knew, then the highest-ranking elected Democrat official was encouraging foreign election interference. And she should be held accountable for it just the way she wanted Trump to be.

It’s time for Republicans to start asking questions about the foreign election interference campaign.

Whatever Pelosi knew or didn’t know then, everyone now knows that foreign companies are participating in a campaign to shut down President Trump and his political supporters. This disturbing campaign of election interference has not been condemned by Democrats, only praised by them.

A foreign oligarchy has intervened in the 2020 election. The security of our political system must be protected by taking on this foreign election interference by foreign companies, some of whom may hope to profit from President Trump’s defeat, by sanctioning them for their attack on our system.

Any Democrats, who have demanded action against foreign election interference, but block sanctions on those companies should be held accountable for their complicity in foreign election interference.