The Trump-DeSantis “Split?” — Real, or Staged?

A Trump-DeSantis “Split?”


NOVEMBER 10, 2022

NY Times Headlines:

Trump Under Fire From Within G.O.P. After Midterms
*Trump Threatens to Reveal Unflattering Information About DeSantis if He Runs*The Trump-DeSantis Feud Just Got Worse

From whence this sudden love and hype from the Marxist Media for the very conservative and just re-elected Governor of Florida, Ronald DeSantis? Also joining the “DeSantis is the Future” parade are certain luminaries of the Conservative Inc. talkacracy and some “conservative” Republicans. The spin of these shysters — be they from the Left or the controlled Right — goes something like this: “Election 2022 was a disaster for Trump but a great triumph for DeSantis. It’s time to move on past Election Denial and look to the future.”

Of course, the real agenda here is to get rid of Trump. Even if DeSantis is “legit,” he is simply not the force of nature that Trump is, and therefore, would be easier to defeat (especially after alienating Trump loyalists) or at least easier to control. DeSantis’s role in this manufactured “feud” is not clear. He may be an innocent party — or he may be secretly working with Trump (the man who made him) — or he may have developed higher ambitions of his own now. But as for Trump, it seems obvious to us that he is once again baiting his internal enemies (who never seem to learn any lessons) into yet another mole hunt — not unlike the great smoke-em-out of post-January 6th.

On consecutive days, the “conservative” New York Post exalted DeSantis (DeFuture) and then proclaimed the end of “Trumpty Dumpty.”

1. “Conservative” Ben Shapiro (cough cough) wasted no time in blaming Trump for the “disaster” which actually flipped the House for MAGA and probably the Senate too. // 2. Make-believe Trumper Mike Cernovich flipped quickly as well, telling 1 Million Twitter followers: “The country doesn’t care about the 2020 election. Trump can’t move on, oh well. Bye. We don’t have to suck up to him anymore.” // 3. Kayleigh McEnany (Trump’s former press secretary & current FOX News star) said that DeSantis should be invited to campaign for Herschel Walker for the Georgia runoff in December, but would not say if Trump should be. (here)

It was Trump who initiated the “feud” by referring to DeSantis as “DeSanctimonious” at one of his rallies. The comment surprised and confused the audience because DeSantis is highly regarded in MAGAland, and he has never given any indication that he opposes Trump. Like a cat foolishly chasing a laser pointer, the Deep State took Trump’s bait and created the “Trump-DeSantis” split which, like every other “get Trump” initiative, will also fail because Trump was behind it all along.

In the meantime, never forget what The Donald said to Charlie Rose on his PBS show way back in 1992:

“I used to say that someday I’d like to maybe lose everything for a period of time, just to see who is loyal and who is not loyal... You can’t guess it. You really can’t predict it. You think certain people would be loyal no matter what, and it turns out that they are not.”

“I’m so loyal to people, that when somebody is slightly disloyal to me, I look upon it as a great act of horror…… I love getting even with people. Given the opportunity, I will get even with people who are disloyal to me.”

Let us see what other ambitious scoundrels, cowardly weaklings and hidden traitors will imprudently hop aboard the DeSantis 2024 bandwagon in the coming weeks and months.

1. Trump’s laser pointer makes the media cats do whatever he wants them to do. // 2. Trump, 1992: “You really can’t predict it. You think certain people would be loyal no matter what, and it turns out that they are not.” (video here)

The U.S. Government’s Vast New Privatized Censorship Regime

By Jenin Younes

One warm weekend in October of 2020, three impeccably credentialed epidemiologists—Jayanta Bhattacharya, Sunetra Gupta, and Martin Kulldorff, of Stanford, Oxford, and Harvard Universities respectively—gathered with a few journalists, writers, and economists at an estate in the Berkshires where the American Institute for Economic Research had brought together critics of lockdowns and other COVID-related government restrictions. On Sunday morning shortly before the guests departed, the scientists encapsulated their views—that lockdowns do more harm than good, and that resources should be devoted to protecting the vulnerable rather than shutting society down—in a joint communique dubbed the “Great Barrington Declaration,” after the town in which it was written.

The declaration began circulating on social media and rapidly garnered signatures, including from other highly credentialed scientists. Most mainstream news outlets and the scientists they chose to quote denounced the declaration in no uncertain terms. When contacted by reporters, Drs. Anthony Fauci and Francis Collins of the NIH publicly and vociferously repudiated the “dangerous” declaration, smearing the scientists—all generally considered to be at the top of their fields—as “fringe epidemiologists.” Over the next several months, the three scientists faced a barrage of condemnation: They were called eugenicists and anti-vaxxers; it was falsely asserted that they were “Koch-funded” and that they had written the declaration for financial gain. Attacks on the Great Barrington signatories proliferated throughout social media and in the pages of The New York Times and Guardian.

Yet emails obtained pursuant to a FOIA request later revealed that these attacks were not the products of an independent objective news-gathering process of the type that publications like the Times and the Guardian still like to advertise. Rather, they were the fruits of an aggressive attempt to shape the news by the same government officials whose policies the epidemiologists had criticized. Emails between Fauci and Collins revealed that the two officials had worked together and with media outlets as various as Wired and The Nation to orchestrate a “takedown” of the declaration.

Nor did the targeting of the scientists stop with the bureaucrats they had implicitly criticized. Bhattacharya, Gupta, and Kulldorff soon learned that their declaration was being heavily censored on social media to prevent their scientific opinions from reaching the public. Kulldorff—then the most active of the three online—soon began to experience censorship of his own social media posts. For example, Twitter censored one of Kulldorff’s tweets asserting that:

“Thinking that everyone must be vaccinated is as scientifically flawed as thinking that nobody should. COVID vaccines are important for older, higher-risk people and their caretakers. Those with prior natural infection do not need it. Not children.”

Posts on Kulldorff’s Twitter and LinkedIn criticizing mask and vaccine mandates were labeled misleading or removed entirely. In March of 2021, YouTube took down a video depicting a roundtable discussion that Bhattacharya, Gupta, Kulldorff, and Dr. Scott Atlas had with Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida, in which the participants critiqued mask and vaccine mandates.

Because of this censorship, Bhattacharya and Kulldorff are now plaintiffs in Missouri v. Biden, a case brought by the attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana, as well as the New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA), which is representing them and two other individuals, Dr. Aaron Kheriaty and Jill Hines. The plaintiffs allege that the Biden administration and a number of federal agencies coerced social media platforms into censoring them and others for criticizing the government’s COVID policies. In doing so, the Biden administration and relevant agencies had turned any ostensible private action by the social media companies into state action, in violation of the First Amendment. As the Supreme Court has long recognized and Justice Thomas explained in a concurring opinion just last year, “[t]he government cannot accomplish through threats of adverse government action what the Constitution prohibits it from doing directly.”

Federal district courts have recently dismissed similar cases on the grounds that the plaintiffs could not prove state action. According to those judges, public admissions by then-White House press secretary Jennifer Psaki that the Biden administration was ordering social media companies to censor certain posts, as well as statements from Psaki, President Biden, Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, and DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas threatening them with regulatory or other legal action if they declined to do so, still did not suffice to establish that the plaintiffs were censored on social media due to government action. Put another way, the judges declined to take the government at its word. But the Missouri judge reached a different conclusion, determining there was enough evidence in the record to infer that the government was involved in social media censorship, granting the plaintiffs’ request for discovery at the preliminary injunction stage.

Collusion Between Government and “Big Tech” To Suppress Free Speech: Illegal Censorship of Stories involving Covid Jab Refusal

The Missouri documents, along with some obtained through discovery in Berenson v. Twitter and a FOIA request by America First Legal, expose the extent of the administration’s appropriation of big tech to effect a vast and unprecedented regime of viewpoint-based censorship on the information that most Americans see, hear and otherwise consume. At least 11 federal agencies, and around 80 government officials, have been explicitly directing social media companies to take down posts and remove certain accounts that violate the government’s own preferences and guidelines for coverage on topics ranging from COVID restrictions, to the 2020 election, to the Hunter Biden laptop scandal.

Correspondence publicized in Missouri further corroborates the theory that the companies dramatically increased censorship under duress from the government, strengthening the First Amendment claim. For example, shortly after President Biden asserted in July of 2021 that Facebook (Meta) was “killing people” by permitting “misinformation” about COVID vaccines to percolate, an executive from the company contacted the surgeon general to appease the White House. In a text message to Murthy, the executive acknowledged that the “FB team” was “feeling a little aggrieved” as “it’s not great to be accused of killing people,” while he sought to “de-escalate and work together collaboratively.” These are not the words of a person who is acting freely; to the contrary, they denote the mindset of someone who considers himself subordinate to, and subject to punishment by, a superior. Another text, exchanged between Jen Easterly, director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), and another CISA employee who now works at Microsoft, reads: “Platforms have got to get more comfortable with gov’t. It’s really interesting how hesitant they remain.” This is another incontrovertible piece of evidence that social media companies are censoring content under duress from the government, and not due to their directors’ own ideas of the corporate or common good.

Further, emails expressly establish that the social media companies intensified censorship efforts and removed particular individuals from their platforms in response to the government’s demands. Just a week after President Biden accused social media companies of “killing people,” the Meta executive mentioned above wrote the surgeon general an email telling him, “I wanted to make sure you saw the steps we took just this past week to adjust policies on what we are removing with respect to misinformation, as well as steps taken further to address the ‘disinfo dozen’: we removed 17 additional Pages, Groups, and Instagram accounts tied to [them].” About a month later, the same executive informed Murthy that Meta intended to expand its COVID policies to “further reduce the spread of potentially harmful content” and that the company was “increasing the strength of our demotions for COVID and vaccine-related content.”

Alex Berenson, a former New York Times reporter and a prominent critic of government-imposed COVID restrictions, has publicized internal Twitter communications he obtained through discovery in his own lawsuit showing that high-ranking members of the Biden administration, including White House Senior COVID-19 Advisor Andrew Slavitt, had pushed Twitter to permanently suspend him from the platform. In messages from April 2021, a Twitter employee noted that a meeting with the White House had gone relatively well, though the company’s representatives had fielded “one really tough question about why Alex Berenson hasn’t been kicked off from the platform,” to which “mercifully we had answers” (emphasis added).

About two months later, days after Dr. Fauci publicly deemed Berenson a danger, and immediately following the president’s statement that social media companies were “killing people,” and despite assurances from high-ups at the company that his account was in no danger, Twitter permanently suspended Berenson’s account. If this does not qualify as government censorship of an individual based on official disapproval of his viewpoints, it would be difficult to say what might. Berenson was reinstated on Twitter in July 2022 as part of the settlement in his lawsuit.

In 1963, the Supreme Court, deciding Bantam Books v. Sullivan, held that “public officers’ thinly veiled threats to institute criminal proceedings against” booksellers who carried materials containing obscenity could constitute a First Amendment violation. The same reasoning should apply to the Biden administration campaign to pressure tech companies into enforcing its preferred viewpoints.

The question of how the Biden administration has succeeded in jawboning big tech into observing its strictures is not particularly difficult to answer. Tech companies, many of which hold monopoly positions in their markets, have long feared and resisted government regulation. Unquestionably—and as explicitly revealed by the text message exchanged between Murthy and the Twitter executive—the prospect of being held liable for COVID deaths is an alarming one. Just like the booksellers in Bantam, social media platforms undoubtedly “do not lightly disregard” such possible consequences, as Twitter’s use of the term “mercifully” indicates.

It remains to be seen whether Bhattacharya and Kulldorff will be able to show that Fauci and Collins explicitly ordered tech companies to censor them and their Great Barrington Declaration. More discovery lies ahead, from top White House officials including Dr. Fauci, that may yield evidence of even more direct involvement by the government in preventing Americans from hearing their views. But Bhattacharya, Kulldorff, and countless social media users have had their First Amendment rights violated nonetheless.

The government’s involvement in censorship of specific perspectives, and direct role in escalating such censorship, has what is known in First Amendment law as a chilling effect: Fearing the repercussions of articulating certain views, people self-censor by avoiding controversial topics. Countless Americans, including the Missouri plaintiffs, have attested that they do exactly that for fear of losing influential and sometimes lucrative social media accounts, which can contain and convey significant social and intellectual capital.

Moreover, the Supreme Court recognizes that a corollary of the First Amendment right to speak is the right to receive information because “the right to receive ideas follows ineluctably from the sender’s First Amendment right to send them.” All Americans have been deprived—by the United States government—of their First Amendment rights to hear the views of Alex Berenson, as well as Drs. Bhattacharya and Kulldorff, and myriad additional people, like the reporters who broke the Hunter Biden laptop story for the New York Post and found themselves denounced as agents of Russian disinformation, who have been censored by social media platforms at the urging of the U.S. government. That deprivation strangled public debate on multiple issues of undeniably public importance. It allowed Fauci, Collins, and various other government actors and agencies, to mislead the public into believing there was ever a scientific consensus on lockdowns, mask mandates, and vaccine mandates. It also arguably influenced the 2020 election.

The administration has achieved public acquiescence to its censorship activities by convincing many Americans that the dissemination of “misinformation” and “disinformation” on social media presents a grave threat to public safety and even national security. Over half a century ago, in his notorious concurrence in New York Times v. United States (in which the Nixon administration sought to prevent the newspaper from printing the Pentagon Papers) Justice Hugo Black rejected the view that the government may invoke such concepts to override the First Amendment: “[t]he word ‘security’ is a broad, vague generality whose contours should not be invoked to abrogate the fundamental law embodied in the First Amendment,” he wrote. Justice Black cited a 1937 opinion by Justice Charles Hughes explaining that this approach was woefully misguided: “The greater the importance of safeguarding the community from incitements to the overthrow of our institutions by force and violence, the more imperative is the need to preserve inviolate the constitutional rights of free speech, free press, and free assembly … that government may be responsive to the will of the people and that changes, if desired, may be obtained by peaceful means. Therein lies the security of the Republic, the very foundation of constitutional government.”

The Founders of our country understood that line-drawing becomes virtually impossible once censorship begins and that the personal views and biases of those doing the censoring will inevitably come into play. Moreover, they recognized that sunlight is the best disinfectant: The cure for bad speech is good speech. The cure for lies, truth. Silencing people does not mean problematic ideas disappear; it only drives their adherents into echo chambers. People who are booted off Twitter, for example, often turn to Gab and Gettr, where they are less likely to encounter challenges to patently false posts claiming, for example, that COVID vaccines are toxic.

Indeed, this case could not illustrate more clearly the First Amendment’s chief purpose, and why the framers of the Constitution did not create an exception for “misinformation.” Government actors are just as prone to bias, hubris, and error as the rest of us. Drs. Fauci and Collins, enamored of newfound fame and basking in self-righteousness, took it upon themselves to suppress debate about the most important subject of the day. Had Americans learned of the Great Barrington Declaration and been given the opportunity to contemplate its ideas, and had scientists like Bhattacharya, Gupta, and Kulldorff been permitted to speak freely, the history of the pandemic era may have unfolded with far less tragedy—and with far less damage to the institutions that are supposed to protect public health.

Leftists Hate Free Speech Because They Fear Dissent, Not ‘Disinformation’

I think one of the most bizarre social developments of the past 10 years in the US has been the slow but steady shift of the political left as supposed defenders of free speech to enemies of free speech. The level of mental gymnastics on display by leftists to justify their attacks on freedom and the 1st Amendment is bewildering.

leftists hate free speech because they fear dissent, not 'disinformation'

So much so that I begin to question if liberals and leftists ever actually had any respect for 1st Amendment rights to begin with? Or, maybe the only freedom they cared about all along was the freedom to watch pornography…

One can see the steady progression of this war on speech and ideas, and the end game is predictable:

Is anyone really that surprised that the Biden Administration is implementing a Ministry of Truth in the form of the DHS Disinformation Governance Board?

Can we just accept the reality at this point that leftists are evil and their efforts feed into an agenda of authoritarianism? Is there any evidence to the contrary?

Before I get into this issue, I think it’s important to point out that it’s becoming tiresome to hear arguments these days suggesting that meeting leftists “somewhere in the middle” is the best and most desirable option. I see this attitude all over the place and I think it comes from a certain naivety about the situation we are facing as a country.

Moderates and “normies” along with people like Bill Maher and Russell Brand are FINALLY starting to realize how bag-lady-crazy leftists are and the pendulum is swinging back slightly. But, it was conservatives that were calling out the social justice cult and their highway to hell for years.

While everyone else was blissfully ignorant, we were fighting the battles that stalled the leftist advance. This is not to say I’m not happy to have moderates and reformed liberals on board, it’s a great thing. However, the time for diplomacy and meeting leftists halfway is long dead.

There is no such thing as a “center” in our society anymore, either you lean conservative and you support freedom, or you lean left and support authoritarianism. There is no magical and Utopian in-between that we need to achieve to make things right. We are not required to tolerate leftist authoritarianism because of “democracy.”

Sometimes certain ideologies and certain groups are mutually exclusive to freedom; meaning, they cannot coexist within a society that values liberty.

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

To understand how leftists got to the point of enthusiastic hatred of free speech rights there are some psychological and philosophical factors that need to be addressed. These include specific ideals that leftists value that are disjointed or simply irrational:

Hate Speech Is Real And Must Be Censored?

First, as I have argued for many years, there is no such thing as “hate speech.” There is speech that some people don’t like and speech they are offended by. That is all.

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

Leftists believe the opposite. Instead of growing a thicker skin they think that “hate speech” should be illegal and that they should be the people that determine what hate speech is.

This is a kind of magical door to power, because if you can declare yourself the arbiter of hate speech you give yourself the authority to control ALL speech. That is to say, as the thought police all you have to do is label everything you don’t like as hate speech, no matter how factual, and you now dictate the course of society.

No one is capable of this kind of objectivity or benevolence. No person alive has the ability to determine what speech is acceptable without bias.

Like the One Ring in the Lord of The Rings, there is no individual or group capable of wielding such power without being corrupted by it. Either there is no hate speech, or everything becomes hate speech.

Free Speech Is Negated By Property Rights?

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

Leftists argue for private property rights, but only when it comes to vast corporate big tech platforms like Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, etc. They like private property rights for companies that they think are on their side politically; they hate private property rights for everyone else. Just look at their response to Elon Musk’s recent Twitter buyout; the leftists are demanding that Musk be stopped at all costs, and they demand that the SEC and FCC step in to disrupt the sale because they claim Musk’s purchase is a “threat to democracy.”

The media itself is clamoring to disrupt Musk’s takeover of Twitter. Whether or not you trust him, Musk’s acquisition of the platform has at least exposed the totalitarian attitudes of mainstream journalists for everyone to see. They are now even admitting on air that THEY control public discussion; that it is “their job,” and they see Musk as a threat to that monopoly.

Why are Elon Musk’s private property rights less important or protected than the original shareholders of Twitter (Vangaurd, BlackRock, Morgan Stanley and a Saudi Prince)? Because Musk does not claim to represent leftist designs and interests?

Leftists have no principles, they only care about manufacturing consent. Their method of winning requires that they never restrict themselves within the boundaries of values or morals. Again, this is the epitome of pure evil.

Beyond that irony, though, is the deeper issue of government intervention vs business rights. Many people seem to think that government power is supposed to balance out corporate power when the truth is that governments and corporations work hand in hand; they are often one in the same entity.

Twitter and other Big Tech platforms receive billions upon billions of dollars in government stimulus and tax incentives every year. Corporations as a concept are essentially a socialist creation. They enjoy limited liability and corporate personhood along with other special protections under government charter.

With all these protections, incentives, bailouts and stimulus measures it is almost impossible for small and new businesses to compete with them. They represent a monopoly through cartel; they control the marketplace by colluding with each other and colluding with the government.

A perfect example of this would be the coordination between multiple Big Tech companies to bring down Parler, a conservative leaning competitor to Twitter.

This required some of the biggest companies in the world working in unison along with the blessing of government officials to disrupt the ability of a new company to offer an alternative, and all because Parler was getting too big.

In the case of a private person’s home or their small business or small website, it’s true that there are no free speech rights.

They can kick you out and they don’t have to give a reason. But when it comes to massive conglomerates that receive billions in OUR tax dollars in order to stay alive, no, they do not deserve private property rights.

They have now made themselves into a public utility, and that means they are subject to constitutional limitations just as public schools and universities are.

This is a concept that leftists just don’t grasp. They view corporate power as sacrosanct…as long as it serves their interests.

Consider global corporations like Disney and their open intention to undermine the passage of Florida’s anti-grooming bill; this represents Disney’s vocal support for the sexualization and indoctrination of children in Florida schools.

Leftists cheered the announcement and claimed that without Disney, Florida’s economy would be wrecked. Instead, the state turned the tables and took away incentives they had been giving to Disney for decades.

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

But let’s break this down: Leftists happily supported Disney, a massive conglomerate, and their efforts to undermine the will of the voters in Florida.

The state government stops them from undermining the voters by taking away the money and special incentives that belong to the voters. In turn, leftists claim this is a violation of Disney’s rights?

The disparity between leftist arguments on Elon Musk’s takeover of Twitter vs. Disney’s attempted sabotage of Florida law could not be more confused.

When it comes to Twitter they love the idea of censorship and react with panic when the mere prospect of free speech (within the confines of US law) is presented.

When it comes to Disney, they say they love the idea of free speech, and anyone that wants to limit the corporation’s influence within Florida, no matter how criminal, is accused of fascism.

The difference is obvious – Musk appears to be an uncontrolled element, while Disney is an “ally.” Free speech and property rights are only allowed for one side of the cultural divide. Leftists attacking freedom is free speech; defending ourselves against those attacks is a threat to democracy. It’s absurd.

Disinformation Is A Threat And Censorship Is The Solution?

The holy grail of censorship is not website filters and algorithms, because as we have seen with Twitter, those platforms could be built or purchased by someone that does not share in the leftist agenda.

Instead, government intervention and the ability to define what is proper and improper discourse is the ultimate goal. The end game of authoritarians is always to write mass censorship into law, as if it is justified once it is codified.

Corporate elites and political puppets like Biden pontificating about the threat of “disinformation” is hilarious for a number of reasons, but mainly because it is the power brokers and the media that have been the main purveyors of disinformation for a long time. Suddenly today they care about the spread of lies?

I think it is obvious that such people are far more worried about the spread of facts, evidence and truth. They cannot debate on fair ground because they will lose, so, the only other option is to silence us.

The institution of the Disinformation Governance Board is a clear indication that the establishment and the useful idiots on the political left are becoming DESPERATE.

Their grip on the public mind is slipping, and we saw this during their recent attempts to enforce medical tyranny across the country in the name of covid.

Luckily, conservatives in at least 20 red states fought against the implementation of covid lockdowns, mandates and jjab passports which would have annihilated our constitutional rights forever.

For years I heard the argument that when the jackboots arrived conservatives would do nothing, and now we know this is nonsense.

Some of the few free places in the world during two years of pandemic fear mongering were red states in America, which coincidentally also have the highest concentration of conservatives.

If you want to know what our country would look like had conservatives not stopped the tide of tyranny, just take a gander at China today.

They have some of the strictest covid mandates on the planet and yet they are once again locking down millions of citizens due to “high infection rates.” Not only that, but they are starving their own people in the process.

It’s madness, and it’s exactly what leftists were arguing in favor of just a few months ago. The US is mostly open today, just as red states like mine have been free for almost the entirety of the pandemic, and what has changed? Half the country is still unvaccinated – Is there mass death in the streets? Nope.

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

Not long ago, pointing out this fact was considered “disinformation” that needed to be silenced in order to “save lives.” The Hunter Biden laptop story was called disinformation.

The Wuhan Lab story was called disinformation. Fauci’s gain of function research on covid at the Wuhan lab was called disinformation. The fact that vaccinated people still contract and die from covid was called disinformation.

In other words, what the government and corporate oligarchs call “disinformation” today is eventually called reality tomorrow.

I would be happy to enter into a fair debate with White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki on any of the above issues and her views of what constitutes “disinformation,” but she would never do such a thing because she knows she would be crushed like a bug.

It is not the government’s job to protect the public from information, whether real or fake. It is not their job to filter or censor data or ideas. They are not qualified to do this. No one is.

Leftists operate from a collectivist mentality and this makes them believe that society is a singular entity that needs to be managed and manipulated to achieve a desired outcome.

They have no concept of individual responsibility and discernment, but that is a side note to the real problem. They support information control because facts and ideas outside of their narrative could possibly damage that narrative. And, if the narrative is damaged they lose their feeling of power, which is all they really care about.

If your narrative is so fragile that it does not hold up to scrutiny or alternative viewpoints then it must not be worth much of a damn. If you have to force people or manipulate people into believing the way you do, then your ideology must be fundamentally flawed.

The truth speaks volumes for itself and eventually wins without force. Only lies need to be forced into the collective consciousness. Only lies require tyranny.

Eventually reality wins over propaganda, unless total censorship and totalitarianism can be achieved. Nothing has changed in the 200+ years since the creation of the Bill of Rights.

Free speech is still integral to a functioning society. Without it, society crumbles. They will claim that today things are different and that society needs to be “protected from itself.” This is what tyrants always say when trying to steal power.

Most people reading this know by now that this is a war. It’s not a political debate that requires give-and-take, but a full-bore winner-take-all conflict. A DHS faction which is mandated to monitor our speech and propagandize the public is unacceptable and must be eliminated.

Leftist and globalist monopoly of social media communications platforms is unacceptable and must be eliminated. The imposition of leftist and globalist ideology into the media narrative while censoring any contrary information is unacceptable and must be eliminated.

This is about saving the remaining embers of American culture. If we do not take an aggressive stand now, the next generation may never know liberty. Everything we hold dear is at stake.

By Brandon Smith, Alt-Market.us

Who Murdered the Walt Disney Company? 

By Mike King

APRIL 27, 2022

NY Times:


Disney to Lose Special Tax Status in Florida Amid ‘Don’t Say Gay’ Clash
*

DeSantis’s Attack on Disney Is  an Assault on Democracy

*
What We Know About the DeSantis-Disney Rift

The once untouchable Walt Disney Co. Empire has had a very rough month of April. Bad publicity, a dying streaming service, sinking stock price, and White Hat Governor’s Ron DeSantis unexpected revocation of a 55-year-old arrangement which gave Disney special tax status and allowed it to self-govern its 25,000-acre Disney World complex. The loss of that designation is the latest battle in an ongoing war between DeSantis and the largest private employer in Florida.

The cosmetic cause of DeSantis / Disney fight is described in the article:

“In March, the governor signed a bill that prohibits classroom instruction and discussion about sexual orientation and gender identity.

The “Parental Rights in Education” law, referred to by critics as the “Don’t Say Gay” bill … has been heralded by conservatives and scorned by L.G.B.T.Q. activists and many school teachers. Although initially silent, Disney joined the debate when its chief executive, Bob Chapek, criticized the bill.

Mr. DeSantis was not happy with Disney’s response. “If Disney wants to pick a fight, they chose the wrong guy,” he wrote.”

In reality, DeSantis was just using Chapek’s forced and timid comments as a pretext to attack Disney because that Evil Empire is loaded with child rapists and promotes filth to children in subtle and not-so-subtle ways. More power to Governor DeSantis … and death to Disney!

Satan’s sodomite brigades pressured Disney into denouncing the so-called “Don’t Say Gay” law. Stuck between a cock and a hard place, Disney’s CEO finally caved into the rainbow retards. Governor DeSantis then used the opportunity to pounce upon the company.

The real power above Chapek is Disney Chairbitch Susan Arnold(cough cough), and the six largest shareholders —  BlackrockVanguard, State Street former Chairman Bob IgerAllen Braverman and Christine McCarthy. With a list of “usual suspects” like that (and many more in the top ranks of the company), regular readers of The Anti-New York Times certainly don’t need to be told why the Walt Disney Co. (of Florida and California) now pumps out degeneracy and is infested with child rapists. It’s simply what (((they))) do.

But enough about the usual suspects and their usual dirty deeds. Let’s learn a bit about Walt Disney — the good man who, with his brother, Roy — built the company and is surely turning over in his grave as his family name is now inextricably linked with this evil institution which got Judaized after the Disney brothers were gone.

Walter E. Disney was born in Chicago in 1901. He studied art as a boy and went on to work as a commercial illustrator before moving to California to set up the Disney Brothers Studio with his elder brother, Roy. Disney developed the character “Mickey Mouse” in 1928. As his studio grew, he introduced unique feature-length cartoons such as Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, Pinocchio, Fantasia, Dumbo, Cinderella and Bambi. During the 1950s & 60s, live action films followed, including the successful Mary Poppins. Disney also expanded into the amusement park industry, and opened Disneyland in Anaheim, California. After he died of lung cancer in 1966, Roy  then took over and would also oversee the establishment of another resort in Florida. He died in 1971. The Brothers Disney  ran a clean film and resort operation which many millions of children enjoyed. They were patriotic, anti-Communist, (Walt was rumored to be “anti-Semitic”) and decent men of business — true American originals. So, what the heck happened to their company?

Following the death of Walt Disney in 1966, the company narrowly survived several takeover attempts by the usual suspects. Years after Roy’s death, in 1984 to be exact, his son and major shareholder, Roy E. Disney, brought in Michael Eisner as CEO and Chairman of the Board to strengthen the company. Eisner then brought in Jeffrey Katzenberg as Walt Disney Studios chairman. Eisner soon became the king and the self-promoting public face of the company, and was very recognized by the children who visited the parks and often asked him for autographs. In a financial sense, Eisner and Katzenberg, and later on, Iger, did succeed in strengthening and expanding Walt Disney Company into a monstrous conglomerate which acquired ABC, The History Channel (50%), ESPN, Touchstone Pictures, Marvel, Lifetime (50%), A&E (50%) and more. But with respects to the cultural and moral elements of the multi-media operation — well, you know.

Walt Disney’s Horrifying Background & Heinous Agenda

In recent weeks the Sunshine State has garnered global attention yet again. Florida Governor Ron DeSantis made headlines after unveiling HB 1557. Titled Parental Rights in Education, the legislation seeks to ban discussing explicit adult subjects with kindergarten and elementary school students.

walt disney’s horrifying background & heinous agenda 2

Critics insist this proposal is an attack on the LGBTQ community. The most vehement opposition came from outspoken Disney representatives who dubbed the bill ‘Don’t Say Gay’. They insist teachers should instruct children on sexual orientation and gender identity.

Conservative-leaning publications produced countless articles stating Disney’s founder would be horrified by his successors’ current stance. In reality, the iconic entrepreneur is not ‘rolling in his grave’ — he’s salivating.

“If the world only had the eyes to see the fibers which lay under the surface of Walt Disney’s image, they’d tar and feather him, and drag him through the streets. If only they knew what Disney’s primary goal is.”

Walter Elias Disney was born on December 5, 1901, in Chicago, Illinois. According to documents from the Central Intelligence Agency archives, he belonged to a very influential Illuminati bloodline. Walt’s father was an outspoken affiliate of the socialist party and a New World Order advocate. Behind closed doors, the strict patriarch physically abused his son.

Longtime companions of the esteemed animator claim that he coped by secretly cross-dressing in his mother’s clothing and makeup. Upon hitting puberty he realized women did not arouse him. Instead, he grew increasingly attracted to little boys. The young man kept these feelings hidden from his religious parents. Nevertheless, he was determined to find a way to live his deepest and darkest fantasies while maintaining an impeccable reputation. Disney would ultimately create a covert child sex trafficking operation insidiously concealed as the ‘happiest place on Earth’.

Child Abusing Pedophile

Early on in the imagineer’s career, colleagues began noticing his blatant affection and inappropriate behavior towards minors. Fellow cartoonists disclosed the executive owned a secluded Los Angeles apartment where he met with underage boys [that were being prostituted].

walt disney satanist pedophile

One victim named Ralph Ferguson testified that Walt paid him $100 for despicable sexual acts on multiple occasions. Another juvenile preyed upon by the predatory producer was Bobby Driscoll. In 1946 the nine-year-old landed a lucrative contract with Disney. He starred in dozens of films and TV shows but is best remembered for his lead role in Peter Pan. Other cast members on set witnessed Walt’s advances firsthand and the disturbing affair was common knowledge amongst industry insiders. Enduring such horrific assaults lead the traumatized actor to self-medicate with various drugs as a teen. After threatening to publicly come forward at the age of 31, Driscoll died under suspicious circumstances.

Federal Government Agent

During the late 1930s, Disney was recruited by high-ranking FBI officials. Dossiers obtained through Freedom of Information Act requests indicate he worked as a Special Correspondent informant for the United States government. Intriguingly, the seemingly wholesome director produced motion pictures for public schools, military personnel, and Internal Revenue Service (IRS) administrators.

Another federal branch interested in the studio kingpin’s unique talents was the CIA. They sought the mogul for his specialty in mind control and programming techniques. Disney flicks are infamous for rampant subliminal messaging. Since the organization’s inception, innumerable scenes flash split-second images that subconsciously affect viewers. Many of these stills portray perverse erotic content or play suggestive audio recordings intentionally obscured by background noise.

disney satanism 2
disney satanism 3
disney satanism 4

A Racist & Supporter Of Nazis

Illustrator Arthur Babbitt, creator of the anthropomorphic dog Goofy, encountered Walt Disney at numerous events celebrating Adolf Hilter’s regime. He stated:

“On more than one occasion I observed Walt Disney at Nazi meetings, along with a lot of other prominent Nazi-afflicted Hollywood personalities. Disney was going to meetings all the time.”

A Mickey Mouse comic strip from June of 1940 featured swastika-laden drawings. As the budding brand grew, non-caucasian characters were frequently sketched in exaggerated and often grotesque depictions. The unsuspecting CEO was a radical eugenist who believed in racial superiority. During the mustached magnate’s lifelong reign, he only hired one full-time African American employee. His position: Walt’s personal shoeshiner.

For nearly a century Disney has meticulously orchestrated the perceptual hijacking of rapidly developing brains. Their target audience is deliberately selected for a nefarious purpose. Formative years, from birth to the age of eight, are critical in establishing our cognitive foundation. It is no coincidence why the corporation’s former stars frequently suffer from substance abuse and experience mental breakdowns.

The Billionaires Behind The LGBTQ & Transgender Agenda: George Soros, Peter Buffett, Tim Gill and the Stryker Dynasty Have Donated HUNDREDS of Millions to the Cause.

Unsettlingly, these instances show no signs of slowing down. Today the conglomerate is worth over $100 billion and owns dozens of broadcasting networks. For this reason, mainstream media outlets parroting identical sentiments rarely equates to the truth. Walt was a depraved individual— not the patron saint ‘journalists’ dotingly idolize.

For further reading material, check out ‘Trance Formation of America: the True Life Story of a CIA Mind Control Slave’ by Cathy O’Brien.

Source: DownTheChupacabraHole.com

Disney Employees In Florida Arrested For Human Trafficking + Videos Appear Online Showing Top Disney Executives’ Desire To Sexualize Children

This is a good time to remind everyone that Walt Disney himself was a 33rd degree Freemason and that occult symbols have been used in Disney entertainment since the beginning.

Australian Altiyan Childs, in his excellent presentation on Freemasonry and Satanism, has a section on Walt Disney and his company that we have lifted out into a minute and a half video clip on our Bitchute Channel.

And let’s not stop with just Walt Disney. This nation, the United States of America, was founded by many Freemasons such as George Washington, and while the Constitution they wrote and ratified was supposed to protect civil rights for all Americans, most of these founders were themselves owners of African slaves and involved in human trafficking.

One doesn’t have to look very far to see the influence of Freemasonry and their occult symbols on the founding of our nation. Just pull out a U.S. 1 dollar bill from your wallet, and you will see many occult symbols.

This is another video clip from Altiyan Childs’ presentation on Freemasonry and Satanism. This is on our Bitchute channel.

By Brian Shilhavy, MedicalKidnap.com

For all of you parents and grandparents out there who still believe that the Walt Disney Company produces “family friendly” entertainment safe for young children, you need to pay attention to what is going on in Florida right now.

disney employees in florida arrested for human trafficking + videos appear online showing top disney executives’ desire to sexualize children

First, four Disney employees in Florida were recently arrested for human trafficking, with one of them being a 27-year-old lifeguard who reportedly sent sexual images of himself and graphic sexual messages to an undercover detective who was posing online as a 14-year-old girl.

NBC 6 in Miami reported:

Four Disney employees were among more than 100 people arrested as part of a human trafficking operation in Florida, authorities said.

Polk County Sheriff Grady Judd on Wednesday announced the arrest of 108 people as part of “Operation March Sadness 2,” a six-day undercover operation.

One of the Disney employees was a 27-year-old man who worked as a lifeguard at Disney’s Polynesian Village Resort, Judd said.

That man allegedly sent sexual images of himself and graphic sexual messages to an undercover detective who was posing online as a 14-year-old girl, Judd said.

Another Disney employee arrested was a 24-year-old man who worked at the Cosmic Restaurant. Other Disney employees arrested were a 45-year-old IT worker and a 27-year-old software developer, Judd said.

“Four arrests of this magnitude in a week is simply remarkable,” Judd said at a news conference. (Full article).

Then, the Walt Disney Company publicly criticized a new law that was recently passed in Florida that is supposed to protect children from sexual predators.

Tucker Carlson recently interviewed Florida Governor Ron DeSantis to discuss why Disney opposed this new law he had just signed.



Disney is infested with pedophiles:

  1. 35 Disney Employees Arrested On Child Sex Charges In Less Than 10 Years.
  2. Child Star Bella Thorne Confessed She Was Raped at Disney From Ages 6 to 14.
  3. Child Star Reveals How Naming His Abuser Got Him Silenced As His CONVICTED Rapist Hired At Disney.
  4. Vice President of Disney Convicted of Child Rape – Gets Only 6 Years.
  5. Weinstein Scandal Exposes Disney for Giving Convicted Pedophile Access to Kids as Film Director.
  6. Reversing Disney’s Black Magic Sex Spells.

And then yesterday, a Twitter user named Christopher Rufo published 3 videos of 3 Disney Executives from an internal meeting where they discuss their transgender and LGBTQIA agenda for children. (One of these was included in the Tucker Carlson interview).

This is a good time to remind everyone that Walt Disney himself was a 33rd degree Freemason and that occult symbols have been used in Disney entertainment since the beginning.

Australian Altiyan Childs, in his excellent presentation on Freemasonry and Satanism, has a section on Walt Disney and his company that we have lifted out into a minute and a half video clip on our Bitchute Channel.

And let’s not stop with just Walt Disney. This nation, the United States of America, was founded by many Freemasons such as George Washington, and while the Constitution they wrote and ratified was supposed to protect civil rights for all Americans, most of these founders were themselves owners of African slaves and involved in human trafficking.

One doesn’t have to look very far to see the influence of Freemasonry and their occult symbols on the founding of our nation. Just pull out a U.S. 1 dollar bill from your wallet, and you will see many occult symbols.

This is another video clip from Altiyan Childs’ presentation on Freemasonry and Satanism. This is on our Bitchute channel.

By Brian Shilhavy, MedicalKidnap.com

Brilliant! How Russians Crushed Moscow’s Dumb Vaccine Passports In Just 3 Weeks

About 40 state legislatures are now following Governor Ron DeSantis’ lead in Florida by moving to ban vaccine passports. But some states and cities are already implementing vaccine passports – and it looks like the puppet-masters running the Biden regime are going to try to force a federal vaccine passport on us very soon. They’ve got to keep their COVID quackery in place through 2022, so they can pull the same election shenanigans as they did last year.

brilliant! how russians crushed moscow’s dumb vaccine passports in just 3 weeks

What are we as free Americans to do about this? Well, we already have one good example of citizens defeating a tyrant mayor’s vaccine passports – in Russia, of all places.

You’ve probably heard of the Excelsior Pass, which is now mandatory in New York City thanks to Pothead Bill DeBlasio, the city’s mayor. Once a person is vaccinated, they can have their HIPAA rights and their constitutionally protected right to travel preserved by getting a QR code on their phone. If you don’t have a QR code, Pothead Bill won’t let you go to a restaurant or do lots of other stuff.

The Mayor of Moscow Russia, a guy named Sergei Sobyanin, thought that Pothead Bill’s commie QR code idea was just ducky. So, Sobyanin made vaccination QR code passports mandatory on the 1st of July this year. Mayor Sobyanin apparently doesn’t smoke as much pot as Pothead Bill, so his vaccine passport plan was actually less restrictive than Pothead Bill’s.

For example, if you’ve already had corona-virus, you are immune to it. You have better immunity than any vaccine can provide. So, Moscow citizens who have had corona-virus and recovered can get a QR code just like a vaccinated person can.

Just like in New York City, it suddenly became illegal for dirty unvaccinated second-class citizens to go certain places. Moscow residents were no longer allowed to eat at restaurants, get their hair cut, go to a movie theater, stay in a hotel, work out at a gym, have a beer at the tavern after work, or get their fingernails done at a nail salon. If they didn’t have a QR code, they were banned from participating in many aspects of the city’s economy.

Here’s how they crushed Mayor Sobyanin’s vaccine passport – and it was pretty simple. Moscow residents simply stopped frequenting any business that required a vaccine passport.

The really beautiful thing about this was that the vaccinated people stood in solidarity with the unvaccinated. Business trickled to near zero at all establishments where the vaccine passport was required.

Moscow residents let their hair grow out, skipped going to bars and restaurants, didn’t go to the movies, didn’t stay in hotels or do anything else that required a vaccine passport.

Business owners from all over the city were suddenly calling Mayor Sobyanin’s office to chew his ear off about the vaccine passports. They were going broke, and they were mad as hell about it.

Marina Zemskova, the head of a regional hotel and restaurant association in Russia, said the vaccine passport turned out to be worse for business than a full lock-down. At least if there was another lock-down, she notes, businesses “could count on some kind of government support measures.”

There’s no government support coming under a vaccine passport system. What the not-very-elite elites failed to anticipate about Moscow residents was they would simply not participate in the scam at all.

The business owners were so infuriated with the mayor that Sobyanin made a sudden, surprise announcement on July 19th that nobody needs to use a vaccine passport anymore. He made up a hilarious excuse, claiming that COVID case rates were all better suddenly, as the reason for lifting the QR code passports.

But everyone knew the truth. Moscow residents decided that their medical privacy and their right to travel is more important than whatever the people in charge were telling them.

It was a massive case of civil disobedience – and they didn’t even have to go outside and set things on fire in a big protest. All they did was say, “Any business that wants to see a vaccine passport from me is not getting any of my money.”

That’s how you do it, Americans! Vaccine passports are the new Jim Crow, and we don’t have to take it. Want to beat the CoronaTyrants at their own game? Just do like the Russians did. Refuse to participate in the Fauci/Biden mandates.

Reference: ConservativeWorldNews.com