Big Tech’s Battle to Erase the Trump Movement and Steal the Election

This Is the ‘Revenge of the Corporate Oligarchs’ Against Political Dissidents

Breitbart News senior technology correspondent Allum Bokhari’s book predicted and exposed Big Tech’s plans to interfere in the 2020 presidential election, said that big tech companies were increasingly subservient to the Democrat party, in much the same way that allegedly private companies are subservient to the Communist party in China.

Comey: Trump Radicalized His Supporters Same Way Al-Qaeda Radicalized Terrorists

Students Demand Harvard Revoke Degrees of Alumni Affiliated with Donald Trump

One thought on “Big Tech’s Battle to Erase the Trump Movement and Steal the Election”

  1. Re: “(Social media) corporations can do what they want!” Well …NO.

    The only reason corporations can get away with raping the public by banning them from social media and monitoring their every move, micro-chipping and vaccinating them with cancerous AIDS virus derivatives, etc., is by bribing Congressweasels with “campaign donations” and guaranteed beneficial online search results whenever their names are Googled! Take advertising money out of politics entirely (and ban all political parties as being the democracy subversion attempts which they obviously are), then remember that ALL corporations are government entities, so NONE of them own any intellectual property rights – they’re all owned by we the people. Time to remind them of that oft-forgotten little FACT!

    Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted in 1948, states that: Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

    Well, since charters of incorporation are granted with only a few categorical conditions denied “discriminating” against, (like mostly some inherent qualities like race, ethnicity, place of origin and others which are more suspect and optional like religion and ‘gender’) right now Trump has no authority over “private companies!” But that could easily be changed to deny them business licenses if they act contrary to the First Amendment (and, for good measure, throw in all the other Constitutional Amendments so they ALL apply to any and all businesses who want to operate under Federal aegis and jurisdiction, too). That’s something that should have been already done long ago.

    The public has been led to believe that government and corporations are separate tools that can be used to keep each side in check. This is a lie. Big government and big corporations have always worked together while pretending to be disconnected, and this needs to stop if we are to ever defuse the political time bomb we now face.

    To solve the social media censorship debacle, we need to examine the very roots of corporations as entities. First, corporations, as we know them today, are a relatively new phenomenon. Adam Smith described the concept of a corporation as a “joint stock company” in his treatise The Wealth Of Nations, and stood against them as a threat to free-market economics. He specifically outlined their history of monopoly and failure and criticized their habit of avoiding responsibility for mistakes and crimes.

    Joint stock companies were chartered by governments and given special protections from risk, as well as protection from civil litigation (lawsuits). But they were supposed to be temporary business entities, not perpetual business entities. The point was to allow for the creation of a joint stock company to finish a particular job, such as building a railroad, and once the job was finished, the company was dissolved and the government protections were no longer needed. Smith knew that if corporations were ever allowed to become permanent fixtures in an economy, they would result in disaster.

    This is exactly what happened in 1886 when the Supreme Court allowed companies like Southern Pacific Railroad to use the 14th Amendment, which was supposed to protect the constitutional rights of newly freed slaves, as a loophole to declare corporations as “legal persons” with all the protections of real persons. Not only that, but with limited liability, corporations actually became super-citizens with protections far beyond normal individuals. Corporations became the preeminent force in the world, and it was their relationship with governments that made this possible.

    This fact completely debunks today’s notion of what constitutes free markets. Corporations are not free market structures. They are, in fact, government chartered and government protected monopolies. They are socialist creations, not free market creations, and therefore they should not exist in a free market society.

    The alternative option was for businesses to form “partnerships,” which did not enjoy protection from government, limited liability or the ability to form monopolies. When the owners of a partnership committed a crime, they could be personally held liable for that crime. When a corporation commits a crime, only the company as a vaporous faceless entity can be punished. This is why it is very rare to see company CEOs face prosecution, no matter how egregious and catastrophic their actions.

    Today, certain corporations continue to enjoy government protections while also enjoying government welfare. Meaning, these companies get a legal shield while also getting the advantage of tax incentives and taxpayer dollars.

    For example, Google (Alphabet and YouTube) has long received huge tax breaks as well as rarely if ever being forced to pay for the massive bandwidth the company uses. In fact, YouTube was facing bandwidth affordability issues, but when it was purchased by Alphabet and Google it no longer had to worry about — Google gets over 21 times more bandwidth than it actually pays for.

    The same rules apply to companies like Twitter, Facebook, Netflix, Apple, etc. All of them enjoy extensive tax breaks as well as cheap bandwidth that makes it impossible for small and medium-sized businesses to compete, even if they operate on a superior model or have superior ideas. Many times the corporations pay no taxes whatsoever while smaller businesses are crippled by overt payments.

    A true free market requires competition as a rule, but the current system deliberately crushes competition. Again, we live in a socialist framework, not a free market framework.

    Now that we understand the nature of big tech and what these companies actually are (creations of government), the debate on social media censorship changes. How? Take for example the fact that public universities in the U.S. are not allowed to interfere with free speech rights because many of them survive by consuming taxpayer dollars. They are public institutions, not private. Why then are we treating major corporations that survive endless taxpayer infusions and incentives as if they are private? They are not — they are public structures and therefore should be subject to the same rules on free speech that universities are required to follow.

Comments are closed.