Eliminating Free Speech the Smart Way

Written by Jeff Thomas, feature writer for Strategic Wealth Preservation, Doug Casey's International Man and 321gold.com

Left-wing activists have recently been increasingly active in seeking to limit opposing thought in order to create a more ubiquitous “groupthink.” One effort in accomplishing this has been to propose the creation of a “Human Rights Committee” in order to monitor the economic transactions of “white supremacist groups and anti-Islam activists.”

This should not be surprising, as, throughout the former Free World, collectivists are, increasingly, coming out of the closet and seeking to eliminate any and all opposition to their cause.

And, this should not, in itself, be alarming, as it should be both predictable and understandable than any politically-driven group, be it left-leaning, or right-leaning, would seek to gain an advantage over its opposite number.

What may be a real cause for alarm, however, is that those whom they are trying to rope into their effort are banks and corporations… and that they are succeeding without a shot being fired.

It might be hoped that those champions of industry and commerce would at least put up a perfunctory fight, but clearly, this is not the case. They’re not only caving in, they’re entirely onboard.

As an example, MasterCard is considering the selective restriction of individuals from their services and funds. Those individuals would be the ones that held unacceptable political views.

But they’re not the first in the queue to economically force people to have “correct” views. PayPal and Patreon have barred selected individuals from receiving payments through their services, when those individuals have been identified as holding “extreme views.” Moreover, they’ve been supported in this decision by the US Securities and Exchange Commission.

Journalist Ben Swann has commented that this means that the US government has granted “big corporations the ability to control what voices are heard.”

The reader will already be familiar with the fact that major corporations that are led by liberally-aligned executives, such as Facebook, Twitter and Amazon, have already proudly stated that they wish to do their part to freeze out those whose opinions they disagree with.

Of course, in a free world, the head of a privately-held corporation should be free to do business with only those individuals he approves of. Although that might make him an isolationist, he should have the right to be an isolationist.

The concern here, though, is that there’s nothing on the horizon that is limiting collectivist notions. All the restrictions are being applied to those who are conservative, libertarian, or in fact, anything but collectivist.

There’s clearly an all-encompassing effort to not only silence non-collectivists in the media (including social media), but to silence them through a loss of economic freedom.

And the campaign is unfolding dramatically, on many fronts, at the same time. It would not be rash to suggest that, by 2020, it may not be safe for an individual to express any non-collectivist position by that time, for fear of being cut out of the economic structure.

Back in the early part of the twentieth century, the Bolsheviks did a wonderful job of eliminating the existence of views that opposed collectivism, through the use of concentration camps and execution. Later in the century, the Nazi (abbreviation for Nationalsozialistische, or National Socialist Party), also did a bang-up job of disappearing dissent against their rhetoric.

But Lenin, Stalin, Hitler and Goebbels would all have their hats off to the new American version of collectivist propaganda, which is not only attacking freedom of speech in the media, but using economic warfare to assure that, in the future, the only propaganda will be collectivist propaganda.

This is a tactic these past collectivist leaders would have envied, as the results of economic pressure can be so immediate and permanent.

And, clearly, large banks, corporations and the US Government are fully on board.

This latter fact informs us that the move to a collectivist society in the US is not merely the work of some extremist groups, it is, indeed, the intended “New America.”

One hundred years ago, the US began a decline into corporatism, with the introduction of the Federal Reserve as the overlord of US banking. Since that time, there has been a steady decline in freedoms in the US, interrupted only by the capitalist boom years that were brought on by World War II.

And we now see the culmination of that long-sought after objective. The American public are not only being full conversion to a collectivist society, they’re being forced into it through economic punishment, should they take any other view.

There can be no question that virtually all of the restrictions of free speech have been to limit any thought other than collectivist thought.

But, the more important take-away here is that this is not a mere ploy by a political group. It has the support of the financial industry, corporate America and the government (through the US Securities and Exchange Commission).

This tells us that the Deep State – that collective body that actually rules the US, above the political structure, is on board for a conversion of the US into a fully collectivist state.

This objective should not be surprising, as rulers always wish, first and foremost, to rule. And, as such, they will always seek to obtain total control, if possible. Collectivism is the key to that goal. The greater the degree of collectivism, the greater the level of totalitarianism.

In limiting free speech, they’re now going about it the smart way. But, this in itself should not be too surprising. What may be surprising is that the changes necessary to bring that about are happening so quickly.

For the US, this is much like Russia, circa 2017, or Germany, circa 1937. The question is no longer whether the government intends to institute totalitarianism, it is how much time remains before the transition is complete.

The answer to this one question should determine whether the US will be a desirable country in which to live after that eventuality.

Jeff Thomas

jeff.thomas1066@gmail.com