21st Century Jim Crow

Social Credit Scores Are Here to Ruin Your Life

Theoretically, it would be nice if we lived in a society where all the lowlifes were excluded from things like public transportation, the gym, bars and restaurants, the workplace and other public spaces.

In theory, the idea of a social credit score is great: a scoring system for all Americans to determine the quality of individual people in order to both ensure the bad people don’t ruin everything for the rest of us, and to discourage toxic behavior.

But that’s where the praise ends.

Because a social credit rating system would inevitably be abused to further disenfranchise and immiserate those with the Wrong Views–that’s you and me.

Hell, we’re already being financially blacklisted by the megabanking cartel, attacked in public and censored online.

A social credit rating system would only make it that much easier to make our lives miserable and discourage others from challenging the Uniparty consensus.

The problem isn’t the idea of a social credit rating system–the problem is who would be in charge of it, and how they would inevitably abuse the system.

Unfortunately, I’m sure you know where this is going: a social credit system in some form already exists here in America.

No longer a “conspiracy theory,” Fast Company just ran an article detailing the many ways in which Americans are already subjected to a Chinese-style social credit rating system:

“Have you heard about China’s social credit system? It’s a technology-enabled, surveillance-based nationwide program designed to nudge citizens toward better behavior. The ultimate goal is to “allow the trustworthy to roam everywhere under heaven while making it hard for the discredited to take a single step,” according to the Chinese government.

In place since 2014, the social credit system is a work in progress that could evolve by next year into a single, nationwide point system for all Chinese citizens, akin to a financial credit score. It aims to punish for transgressions that can include membership in or support for the Falun Gong or Tibetan Buddhism, failure to pay debts, excessive video gaming, criticizing the government, late payments, failing to sweep the sidewalk in front of your store or house, smoking or playing loud music on trains, jaywalking, and other actions deemed illegal or unacceptable by the Chinese government.

It can also award points for charitable donations or even taking one’s own parents to the doctor.Punishments can be harsh, including bans on leaving the country, using public transportation, checking into hotels, hiring for high-visibility jobs, or acceptance of children to private schools. It can also result in slower internet connections and social stigmatization in the form of registration on a public blacklist.

China’s social credit system has been characterized in one pithy tweet as “authoritarianism, gamified.”

And it’s already here:

“Many Westerners are disturbed by what they read about China’s social credit system. But such systems, it turns out, are not unique to China. A parallel system is developing in the United States, in part as the result of Silicon Valley and technology-industry user policies, and in part by surveillance of social media activity by private companies.

The New York State Department of Financial Services announced earlier this year that life insurance companies can base premiums on what they find in your social media posts. That Instagram pic showing you teasing a grizzly bear at Yellowstone with a martini in one hand, a bucket of cheese fries in the other, and a cigarette in your mouth, could cost you. On the other hand, a Facebook post showing you doing yoga might save you money.”

These insurance scammers will never stop thinking of ways to avoid paying you out. But the insurance example is pretty tame and not all that surprising to learn about.

Nor is the fact that Uber and Airbnb not only have driver ratings but also rider ratings, which means you.

But this technology, called “PatronScan,” is something I’d never heard of before reading this article:

“PatronScan helps spot fake IDs—and troublemakers. When customers arrive at a PatronScan-using bar, their ID is scanned. The company maintains a list of objectionable customers designed to protect venues from people previously removed for “fighting, sexual assault, drugs, theft, and other bad behavior,” according to its website. A “public” list is shared among all PatronScan customers. So someone who’s banned by one bar in the U.S. is potentially banned by all the bars in the U.S., the U.K., and Canada that use the PatronScan system for up to a year. (PatronScan Australia keeps a separate system.)

Judgment about what kind of behavior qualifies for inclusion on a PatronScan list is up to the bar owners and managers. Individual bar owners can ignore the ban, if they like. Data on non-offending customers is deleted in 90 days or less. Also: PatronScan enables bars to keep a “private” list that is not shared with other bars, but on which bad customers can be kept for up to five years.

PatronScan does have an “appeals” process, but it’s up to the company to grant or deny those appeals.”

You can see how easily PatronScan will be expanded beyond just the bar and restaurant industry. It’ll be everywhere before long.

And these are just a few examples of the private company-enacted social credit scoring that we know of. We have a good idea of what big tech companies like Facebook, Google, Twitter and Amazon are already doing to discourage dissident political views, but I’m sure we don’t know the full extent of it.

Nor do we know exactly what’s coming next. For instance, this:

proxy.duckduckgo.jpg

But the main thing the leftwing companies will come after is your money: expect a future where the wrong political views will cost you a well-paying job.

The choice will be simple: get in line with the Globalist Uniparty Agenda or live in squalor, barely able to feed yourself.

The Constitution is now basically irrelevant because it’s not the government doing the oppressing, it’s private tech monopolies

Why Did Texas Democrat Joaquin Castro Tweet Out a List of Trump Donors?

What could he possibly have intended by this:

Screen Shot 2019-08-07 at 9.55.19 AM.png

Screen Shot 2019-08-07 at 9.55.07 AM.png

What other reason could he have for tweeting this out other than that he wants his followers to know exactly who to target?

Is it a stretch to say some Antifa nut might see this list and come after some of the people on it? Do you believe Castro didn’t entertain this possibility when he tweeted his list?

Castro knew exactly what he was doing.

This is a hit list, straight up.

At the very least it’s an attempt to publicly shame these people by revealing their names, which Castro hopes will cause discomfort in their social lives and thereby intimidate them into staying on the sidelines.

Thanks to Bolsheviks like Joaquin Castro and the “mainstream” media, much of this country has turned into a hostile environment for Trump supporters. It’s not safe out there for us.

How difficult is it to imagine Antifa thugs gathering in a mob outside these Trump donors’ houses to intimidate them, like Antifa recently did to Sen. Mitch McConnell and last year did to Tucker Carlson?

Thugs like Castro want Trump supporters to say, “It’s just not worth it. I’ll stay out of it. I fear for the safety of my family.”

Of course, Castro has defended himself by claiming it’s not his “intent” to see Trump donors harassed and threatened in real life:

But what other reason could there be for him publishing this list?

Props to the MSNBC anchor for attempting to hold Castro accountable here:

MSNBC: “These people are undoubtedly are already being harassed online, or face to face in some cases, they could be. What do you say to these people who say, ‘I made a campaign donation and now I’m gonna be harassed, I’m gonna have people protesting outside my business, or even my home. What do you say to them? Do you want them to repent for their support for Donald Trump, or what do you want from them?”

CASTRO: “Well the first thing is I don’t want anyone to be harassed or targeted–“

MSNBC: “But they will be, because you put their names in public.”

CASTRO: “Well that was not my intention–“

MSNBC: “But that’s what will happen.”

But Castro closes by saying, “What I would like is for [Trump donors] to think twice about supporting a guy [Trump] who is fueling hate in this country.”

Sure.

Anything is justified if it’s meant to “fight racism.”

See what they’re doing? If you’re labeled a racist, it means you have no rights. You’re fair game. No one will defend you. No one will want to associate with you.

Call someone a racist and they automatically become sub-human.

The term “Racist” in 2019 America has come to mean basically the same thing as “colored” in the Jim Crow South, “Juden” in Nazi Germany and “enemy of the proletariat” in the Soviet Union.

They want to dehumanize you so they can persecute you. It’s that simple. This is not exactly a new playbook.

Here’s the crazy, shrieking psycho Rashida Tlaib (D) agreeing with Castro:

Screen Shot 2019-08-07 at 10.06.02 AM.png

This lady really scares me now that she’s in a position of power. If you haven’t yet seen it I strongly recommend you check out link above her tweet of the recently unearthed video of her shrieking like a banshee as she’s forcibly removed from a Trump campaign event in 2016, presumably for disrupting it. This insane woman is now a Member of Congress, and she’s using her power to come after you.

“The public needs to know who funds racism.”

So that ‘the public’ can do what, exactly?

They never elaborate on that part, but we all know what they mean.

Just because they’re not explicitly calling for violence against Trump donors doesn’t mean they’re not encouraging it.

Burn the racists at stake!

Third-world politics have arrived, America.

***
Mike Cernovich believes Joaquin Castro committed a hate crime:

The Democratic Party has been engaged in one giant hate crime against white people for basically the past three years, so yeah Castro probably used race as part of his criteria for which names he chose to publicize.

Better Think Twice Before You Wear that MAGA Hat in Public

The owner of a New York City art gallery was assaulted by a “group of teens” (I put “teens” in quotes because there were no further details given on the attackers) for wearing a MAGA hat:

But please, let’s not focus on Trump supporters getting what’s coming to them.

Let’s focus on the real problem which is that Blue Checkmark Journalists just aren’t safe anymore in Trump’s America.

Blue Checkmark Liberals, like CNN’s Brian Stelter, are the real victims here, because Twump’s whetowic makes him feewl wess thafe, even though he spends most of his time sitting in an office and tweeting all day:

Sure, Jon Turan was physically beaten because of his political views, but Brian Stelter has to withstand the occasional Mean Tweet from the President!

I for one am glad our Soldiers of Truth in the media have their priorities in line.

Who cares if Trump supporters have become second-class citizens subject to violent intimidation in public? What really matters is that fat, rich Uniparty propagandists are never exposed to any criticism whatsoever.

New York Times & Bezos Washington Post Today: It’s Open Season on Any and All Enemies of the Uniparty Establishment

I used to call it the “Cold Civil War,” referring to the growing sense that America is coming apart along political lines. When you hear stories of Trump supporters being attacked in public, and of major corporations like Visa and MasterCard taking steps to cut off essential services from people who don’t hold Establishment Approved™ Political Positions, it’s hard not to think that this country is heading for a major rupture that may or not turn into a full-scale Second Civil War.

But now I’m mostly moving away from that term “Cold Civil War” and the rhetoric of an impending “national divorce” because I realize media coverage focuses almost entirely on the fringes of both left (Antifa) and right (Charlottesville) in order to create the perception that there is zero common ground between left and right. In other words, the extreme and often violent intolerance coming from the left is not, in fact, indicative of the entire left but rather its most radical and despicable elements.

So I no longer really believe we’re hurtling toward a Second Civil War because the reality is that the vast majority of everyday leftists are not viciously intolerant of us. We definitely can coexist peacefully with the vast majority of leftists.

No, instead of a “Cold Civil War,” what’s happening is two things:

  1. The Uniparty Elite wants to keep Americans divided along political lines. It does not want the populist left and the populist right to realize they actually have a lot in common, most notably an enemy: the Uniparty System itself. The Uniparty wants us fighting each other instead of uniting against it.
  2. The Uniparty Elite also wants to whip up violent hatred and direct it toward its political enemies and those who stand in the way of its goals.

Today, America’s two foremost “newspapers”–the New York Times and the Bezos Washington Post–have made this all abundantly clear:

Here’s the New York Times first:

“This is not an argument for doxxing.”

Huh? That’s exactly what it is.

“Atrocities”–let’s be clear here: if what the border patrol is doing now constitutes committing “atrocities” then Barack Obama’s border patrol also committed atrocities. Obama’s border patrol locked kids in cages, separated families and, worst of all, enabled and encouraged the whole “children at the border” crisis by instituting a “catch and release” policy towards apprehended illegals.

But here’s the truth the New York Times ignores: these people are trying to illegally enter our country by the thousands. There are so many of them we cannot possibly handle them all in a pleasant and timely manner. It’s not simply that our border patrol agents are Inherently Bad People, although Open Borders Extremists would very much like to create that false perception. It’s that they’re overwhelmed by a tidal wave of illegals, who are encouraged to come to our border with children because current government policy, implemented under Obama, makes it more likely you’ll be allowed into America if you come as a “family,” or at least appear to be a family.

In other words, it’s not the border patrol agent’s fault he can’t offer illegal immigrants a glass of water and tuck each one of them in for bed. Maybe if thousands of Central Americans weren’t incentivized by terrible Obama policies to storm the border by the thousands every single day then they wouldn’t be treated so harshly.

And you can tell exactly what the NYT is getting at with its sentence about “hindering the recruitment of replacement” border patrol agents: it’s about erasing the US border entirely. Their real problem is not with how the apprehended illegals are being handled and treated by our border patrol, their problem is that we even have a border patrol apprehending them in the first place.

What the New York Times is doing is trying to mobilize everyday Americans against the policies of the Trump Administration. Dox, publicly shame and possibly even physically attack Border Patrol agents so they quit their jobs, and discourage others from ever pursuing a job with the Border Patrol. The end result will–at least NYT hopes–render Border Patrol totally impotent, and the Uniparty’s dream of an unending tidal wave of mass third world migration will be even closer to reality.

Now on to the Bezos Washington Post:

“How dare someone with different political views from me show their face in public!”

Yeah, that’s very healthy. That’s totally not going to lead to violence or anything. No way that’ll happen.

Pretty rich that the people spitting on others and kicking them out of restaurants for having differing political views are accusing us of “spreading hate.”

I’m sure I’m not the only who’s noticed that the same people who claim to be “fighting against hate” are literally the most hateful people in America today.

“Hey man I’m all about love and tolerance and opposing hatred–FUCK DONALD TRUMP, PUNCH NAZIS, THROW MILKSHAKES ON REPUBLICANS, SPIT ON ERIC TRUMP, CANCEL WHITE PEOPLE!”

They have become the very things they claimed to want to destroy–the key word, of course, being “claimed.” The activist left has never been “anti-hatred.” They’re the most hateful people around today: viciously intolerant, often violent, and not to mention horribly racist against white people.

But being racist against white people “doesn’t count” as real racism for the same reason hating Trump supporters also “doesn’t count” as real hatred: because they deserve it.

Yeah: that not what every genocidal dictator in history told himself or anything.

News flash, you future mass murderers: Hitler did what he did because he believed with all his heart that the Jews deserved it. He didn’t think “Well deep down I know the Jews are innocent but fuck them, I’m evil so let’s just start the Holocaust anyway.” He really and truly believed he was doing the world a favor in going after the Jews. He didn’t think he was evil; he thought the Jews were evil.

Just like you delusional psychopaths think you’re doing the world a favor by going after Trump supporters and white people in general.

Trump supporters can’t be considered a persecuted group if they deserve it, right?

What the Bezos Post is doing in encouraging leftwing activists to hound and even assault prominent members of the Trump movement who happen to venture into public places is not just “irresponsible,” as the “Peacetime Conservatives,” aka “David French Conservatives,” aka the Ben Shapiro Wing of the GOP might classify it.

It’s not “irresponsible” if you know exactly you’re doing. The Post knows exactly what it’s doing here. It is deliberately inciting violence and encouraging people towards extreme intolerance.

That’s not irresponsible. That’s evil.

Today it’s prominent people in the Trump movement–like the President’s son Eric, and his former Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders–being targeted, but tomorrow it will be everyday Trump voters.

If this continues–and there’s no reason to believe it won’t–then in the very near future we could live in a country where it’s simply not safe to publicly express any support for Donald Trump at all. Violently intolerant leftwing extremists now have the blessing of the two most prominent organs of Uniparty Propaganda–the NYT and the Bezos WaPo–to hound, dox and assault Trump supporters in public places.

Again, while I no longer believe this extreme intolerance is widely accepted among the vast majority of everyday leftists, I do believe the sentiment is growing and no longer totally contained to the radical fringe largely due to the “media” encouraging it.

The trend we’re seeing is no doubt disturbing because history has shown us that a majority of the population is not needed to perpetrate genuine atrocities on a large scale. A small minority of the population can and will do terrible things to those they consider their enemies if enabled by elites in government and media.

The NYT and Bezos Post today left no doubt that this is what they want. They’re encouraging and directing their very own American version of Mao’s Red Guard to purge society of their political enemies.

This is why they are, unequivocally, the Enemy of the People.

MasterCard Prepares to Join the Corporate Assault on Political Dissidents

Another day, another freedom taken away from Thought Criminals:

“Activists have successfully forced Mastercard to hold a vote by shareholders on a proposal which, if passed, could see the company monitoring payments to global far-right political leaders and white supremacist groups.

The proposal aims to see Mastercard establish an internal “human rights committee” that would stop designated white supremacist groups and anti-Islam activists, such as Tommy Robinson, from getting access to money sent from donors using the company’s card payment services.”

“It’s been conceived by US-based political activists SumOfUs, who want to escalate the battle against white supremacists and far-right groups from tech platforms like Facebook, Google, Twitter, Patreon, and PayPal to one of the biggest companies in world finance, in an attempt to choke off donations.

“Spreading hate involves spending money,” Eoin Dubsky, from SumOfUs, told BuzzFeed News. “Whether it’s paying for online advertising or organising violent rallies, white supremacist groups need financial services from companies like Mastercard.”

Of course, when they say “white supremacists” they really mean anyone who is against the white genocide agenda.

Simply saying, “It’s okay to be white” is now treated as white supremacism.

For many decades, the term “white supremacist” has brought to mind people like this:

maxresdefault.jpg

And this:

glkjioul.PNG

That’s what most normal people think of when they hear the term “white supremacists.”

But not the left in 2019. Today’s left defines “white supremacist” as any white person who supports Donald Trump and objects to the media-sanctioned anti-white racism run amok in this country.

Anyone who doesn’t feel eternal guilt and shame for being born white is a white supremacist. Anyone who doesn’t hate white people is a white supremacist, in the left’s eyes.

Today, this is considered white supremacism:

WhiteFamilySmilingLarge_full.jpg

If you don’t think MasterCard’s crackdown has any impact on your life, think again.

They’re not coming for the Skinheads. They’re coming for you.

American Apartheid

Ace of Spades:

“Tim Pool mentioned in a post about this general subject matter [Update: I believe it was in this video discussing PayPal’s reliance on the leftwing extremist front group the SPLC to tell them who to ban] that the creation of parallel/shadow institutions was a necessary precondition for an actual civil war, as people need access to money and credit, and they can only get that in a civil war if there are now separate Blue and Gray systems.”

But that will never happen because the banking system in America is run by a small amount of Fed-supported megabanks (who were Too Big to Fail in 2008 and have only grown in size since then). You can’t just bust into the banking sector. It’s a cartel.

“It’s an interesting and provocative idea — and certainly one that has a lot of support in Neocon and Foreign Liberal Internationalist thinking. Those pillars of foreign policy establishment thinking have long claimed that “countries that trade together don’t go to war with each other,” and have sold trade deals only partly on the economics, seeing them mostly as instruments to create and preserve peace.

Well, then: shared commerce and finance keeps America knitted together in peace too, right?”

Presumably, but I have a feeling America is about to test that hypothesis.

“But what happens when major corporations, especially those involved in finance and the free exchange of ideas in order to further the aims of participatory democracy, decide they’re going to effectively exile half the country out of the normal systems of the country?

What happens when half of America won’t buy bread from the other half of America, and half of America won’t issue a mortgage to half of America based on their failing a Political Test and Corporate Loyalty Oath?

What happens to the idea that peoples that trade together can’t go to war with each other then?

The left is driving this nation to the brink of actual civil war, and the corporatist Neocons and #MuhPrinciples cucks are stupidly, ignorantly assisting them in doing so because they don’t like how half of the country voted in a single presidential election.”

What happens is we get civil war.

I have taken to calling it “21st Century Jim Crow,” Ace throws the term Apartheid around and that would also be applicable. American Apartheid:

“Tim Pool [often discusses] the “bifurcation” process going on in America, in which large corporations are forcing the populace to de-couple from each other and form their own parallel and separate communications and finance structures — permitting and even encouraging civil war (or at least civil violence).

If the left wants to be free of us, I understand — but then, we must negotiate a full and formal political separation. The left cannot attempt to exile us and yet keep us prisoner under their thumbs.

You want done with us? I could not rush to agree with your impulse any faster.

But done means DONE. We will not accept your plan of keeping us a second (at best) class citizens under your rule.

A national divorce? Absolutely.

Apartheid, with a ruling progressive class and subjugated conservatives? No.”

This is the most twisted part of it all: if the left cannot tolerate us at all, then at least allow us to go our separate way.

Instead, they want to torment and oppress us. It is sadistic.

21st Century Jim Crow: Trio of Attacks on Trump Supporters

First, we have a high school student in Oklahoma assaulted by a black male for wearing a Trump hat and having a Trump flag:

Of course if the races were reversed (as well as obviously the partisan affiliations) this would be the defining news story of the year nearly on par with Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown.

In New Jersey, an 81-year-old man wearing a MAGA hat was assaulted in a grocery store:

“FRANKLIN TOWNSHIP, N.J. (CBSNewYork) — Prosecutors say an elderly man was assaulted inside a New Jersey supermarket after he was confronted over a “Make America Great Again” hat he was wearing.

Somerset County Prosecutor Michael Robertson says the 81-year-old Franklin Township man was shopping at the Shop Rite on Elizabeth Avenue Monday afternoon when he was approached regarding his red cap.

The victim was assaulted and sustained minor injuries, according to prosecutors. He declined medical attention at the scene.

No arrests have been made and the investigation is ongoing.”

In the era of 21st Century Jim Crow, this was an attempted lynching.

Finally, a man in Massachusetts was assaulted by a woman over his Trump hat:

“A Brazilian woman who made headlines this week after she was charged with assaulting a man wearing a “Make America Great Again” hat inside a Massachusetts restaurant has been taken into custody, officials said Tuesday.

Rosiane Santos, 41, was charged this month with disorderly conduct and assault and battery after police said she admitted to attacking a man because he supported President Trump.

Video submitted by 23-year-old Bryton Turner showed Ms. Santos yelling at him and knocking the red, “Make America Great Again” hat off his head at the Casa Vallarta restaurant in Falmouth. Ms. Santos told local media at the time that she was the victim in the situation, even though a bartender at the restaurant said Mr. Turner did nothing to provoke the alleged attack.

Of course the bitch tried to claim she was the victim.

But there’s a happy twist on this story: the Brazilian illegal alien was taken into custody alright–ICE Custody.

“On Tuesday, ICE officials took Ms. Santos into custody after determining that she was in the country illegally.”

LOL

Hopefully she’s deported.

More 21st Century Jim Crow: PayPal and SPLC Partner to Assault Free Speech

Yesterday I wrote that Republicans are now living in a 21st Century Jim Crow era, forced to live as second-class citizens unable to live normal lives due to their political views.

Within hours of my post going up, Breitbart published this article:

Screen Shot 2019-02-26 at 10.11.47 AM.png

“PayPal CEO Dan Schulman admitted during an interview with the Wall Street Journal that PayPal works with the far-left Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) when it considers blacklisting conservatives.

After being asked by the Wall Street Journal what “values” PayPal identifies with,” Schulman replied, “Probably the most important value to us is diversity and inclusion.”

The leftist does not see any contradiction between “promoting diversity and inclusion” and blacklisting Republicans. Seriously, they do not.

When they say “diversity” they’re not talking about diversity of thought, only superficial diversity like skin color and gender. It doesn’t include political views.

Same with “inclusion”. They’ll include everyone who has the correct politics.

Underpinning all of this is an admission that they don’t believe in free speech. They believe there are certain viewpoints that should never see the light of day, and they are determined to silence these viewpoints wherever they find them.

As long as you hold the Correct Views, you have nothing to worry about.

“During the interview, Schulman also admitted that the far-left SPLC helps to inform “PayPal’s decisions.”

Wonderful. We all know the SPLC gives everyone a fair shake.

“There are those both on the right and left that help us. Southern Poverty Law Center has brought things. We don’t always agree. We have our debates with them. We are very respectful with everyone coming in. We will do the examination carefully,” Schulman explained. “We’ll talk when we don’t agree with a finding: We understand why you think that way, but it still goes into the realm of free speech for us.”

No, that’s not how free speech works. The moment you are discussing censoring anyone at all, you have killed free speech.

Free speech is an all-or-nothing deal: either everyone has it or it doesn’t exist.

The moment you get into picking and choosing who you will censor and who you allow to speak, you have killed free speech. Period.

Schulman is talking about when the SPLC will come to PayPal and say, “We think you should ban X, Y and Z.” And PayPal will respond, “No, we’re only going to ban X and Y, but not Z.”

That’s not “the realm of free speech.” Either X, Y and Z all have free speech, or nobody does. That’s how it works.

“Free speech” does not entail banning certain groups you’ve demonized as dangerous and “hateful” while permitting other groups you’ve deemed either Allies To The Cause or nonthreatening to say what they want.

Allowing only Allies to the Cause and nonthreatening “enemies” (i.e. the Fake Republicans who exist only to push for tax cuts, back down on immigration, bend the knee to political correctness and ultimately represent zero threat to the status quo) the ability to speak freely is not free speech at all. It’s controlled speech.

I used to think they censored us because they really and truly believe we’re extreme and so far off the deep end that their censorship of us is seen as a public service, protecting the vulnerable minds of the masses from “extremism” and dangerous ideas that could lead to violence if allowed to spread.

But the real reason they censor us is because we’re speaking the truth, and we threaten their grip on power.

The only danger we represent is to their grip on power.

What is the solution to 21st Century Jim Crow? We need to effectively expand the First Amendment with legislation guaranteeing the right to hold dissenting political views:

Screen Shot 2019-02-26 at 10.09.17 AM.png

The New Fascists have found a way to circumvent the First Amendment: it’s not the government stifling our free speech, it’s private corporations.

They may not be violating the letter of the First Amendment, but they are unequivocally murdering the spirit of it.

We need legislation expressly prohibiting both private corporations and the government (because the Democrats will retake power eventually) from discriminating based on political views.

Otherwise, this will keep getting worse.

They began restricting free speech on the far right, and now they’re moving inward.

They got people (including self-professed conservatives) to accept the premise that some groups, like the mythical “Neo Nazis” and “White supremacists” they claim are running rampant, should not enjoy free speech.

They started dismantling free speech by picking on the groups nobody would defend, and then they gradually expanded their list of personae non gratae by saying “Y’know, these guys are dangerous, too. And so are these guys.”

The blacklist will keep growing unless Congress acts and passes legislation banning discrimination based on political views.

21st Century Jim Crow

The Oscars were on last night. I’m sure none of you watched–I certainly didn’t–but from what I’ve heard the night was one leftwing anti-Trumper delivering #Brave and #Passionate speeches after another.

Spouting stale anti-Trump cliches to a room of Hollywood leftists who all agree with you; yes, that’s the definition of bravery alright.

Because Trump is just soo fascist and oppressive.

But as has been made obvious, the truth in this country is usually the exact opposite of what conventional wisdom holds. Namely, while most people assume minorities are oppressed and demonized, the reality is that it’s white people who are under assault. Conventional wisdom says women are second class citizens, but in reality it’s men who are losing the battle of the sexes.

And while Hollywood actors believe themselves to be brave countercultural rebels putting their lives and careers on the line to courageously speak out against and #Resist a fascist dictator, the reality is that the bravest public declaration and expression one can make today is support of President Trump.

Actors calling Trump and America #Racist is a multibillion dollar industry and often is the inside track to critical acclaim and Academy Awards. There’s nothing brave about it.

True bravery would have been some actor voicing support of the President despite the universal condemnation and booing it would’ve evoked, as well as the subsequent loss in social status and career opportunities.

True courage–truly speaking “truth to power”–is not popular, it’s not well-received, and one generally will not receive any accolades from major institutions or applause from large audiences.

Rule of thumb: if it’s the socially acceptable thing to say, it’s not brave. If there’s no threat of losing your friends or even your job, you’re not brave for saying it.

In America 2019, we have entered Jim Crow 2.0 where Trump supporters are increasingly barred from participating in public life due to their political views:

[I]ncreasingly monopolistic social media companies that have an inordinate amount of control over who gets heard and who doesn’t have started actively targeting conservatives and we just shrug or spout platitudes.

“If you don’t like the way they do it, take on those monopolies with hundreds of millions of users and billions in cash by building your own company.”

So, what happens when banks and credit card companies target people for their political views? Do we need to build our own banks, too?

Activist Laura Loomer, who has already been banned by PayPal, claims she had her account suspended by Chase Bank.

Enrique Tarrio, the black leader of the Proud Boys, a group that has laughably been branded a white supremacist organization by liberals, was also suspended by Chase. So was Martina Markota. And Joe Biggs, who made enough of a stink that Chase reluctantly gave him his account back.

….

Certainly, there are an awful lot of liberals who would love to see us enter a world [in which banks demanded proof of political correctness before providing services]. In fact, there was a column in the New York Times last year calling for weaponizing the financial industry in exactly this way to shut down the gun industry as part of an effort to deny Americans their Second Amendment rights.

Republicans in the Senate should demand that Chase executives come before them and answer some hard questions about targeting customers for their political views. Maybe we need to rewrite banking regulations to make sure this kind of discrimination can’t occur….

You may have heard someone say, “the Constitution is not a suicide pact.” I would add to that “capitalism is not a suicide pact.” Breaking up monopolies is a conservative idea with a long track record.

This is the preeminent issue of our time outside of immigration.

We are increasingly not allowed to share and spread our views on social media. And now financial services companies and banks are denying us.

Things are increasingly getting to the point in this country where you are not allowed to live a normal life if you’re an outspoken conservative.

This is the New Jim Crow.

And of course Republican politicians–including President Trump–are not willing to do a damn thing about it:

“If conservatives are too complacent and lazy to address the challenges of the 21stcentury, maybe they should step aside for the socialists. They’re not complacent. They don’t sit around saying, “Gee, our people are being mistreated, but it would take work to do something about it and we might offend some powerful business owner if we fight back, so I guess we should let them trample us into the dust.” Conservatives with power need to stop mumbling platitudes about the free market and capitalism while their supporters are being stomped into the ground. They need to defend the real human beings, warts and all, who make it possible for conservatism to exist.

Republican politicians are willing to allow their voters to become second-class citizens in their own country. I don’t really know where else we can turn.

This is why I see no other outcome for the present state of affairs in America than a straight-up Yellow Vest-style popular revolt.