Is “follow the science” our new dictatorship? How ‘Technocracy’ is our new mandatory religion

Dr. Fauci is the nation’s new god, at least in the mind of the mainstream media and federal government. If you don’t follow the science as espoused by Saint Fauci, you are a traitor, an insurrectionist and worse than an infidel.

How did that happen?  Gradually.

Forget about Congress, elections, or the rule of law. The bureaucracy that relies on technocrats,  scientists and engineers has replaced all of that.  The data gathered by our phones and internet feed the technocrat’s algorithms to mold and shape our behaviors.  Many of us believe that same technocrat-driven ideology designed and implemented the algorithms had corrupted the 2020 presidential election. The technocrats deny ‘fraud’.  They likely believe it was simply the Technocracy doing what needed to be done.

The term ‘Technocracy’ encompasses this new science-driven dictatorship.

The ‘cancel culture’ is an offshoot of this dictatorship. It is a tool to implement this scientific dictatorship of Technocracy.  Cancel culture uses the same internet used to populate the technocrat’s algorithms to censor free speech on the internet. Anything we post in social media or in the most popular blogs that disagrees with or debunks the “science” will be cancelled.

Technocracy is not a brand new term.  It has been around for decades. The internet has enabled its newfound power and influence.

Here are a couple of definitions:

Merriam-Webster: “A system in which people with a lot of knowledge about science or technology control a society.”

Britannica: “A political philosophy [relying on] government by technicians who are guided solely by the imperatives of their technology.”

The website technocracy.news defines Technocracy as:

“…a replacement economic system for Capitalism and Free Enterprise, and is represented by the United Nations’ program for Sustainable Development and “Green Economy.” It proposes that all means of production and consumption would be controlled by an elite group of scientists and engineers (technocrats) for the good of mankind. Technocracy was originally architected in the 1930s but regained favor when adopted by the Trilateral Commission in 1973, under their “New International Economic Order” program.”

What’s wrong with Technocracy?”  Here are just a few things:

• Science is a fallible discipline; the ‘absolutes’ of science may change every several years, months, or days. In the meantime civil liberties may be abridged or destroyed by “following the science”.
• Scientists, engineers, and technocrats are fallible human beings that often have agendas and motives incompatible with human welfare, success, prosperity, or happiness. They have no concern for the individual – only for the collective.
• Technocracy as a political philosophy supplants other forms of government such as Constitutional Republics and Democracies with a technocratic dictatorship.
• It has demonstrated that it is capable of replacing a fair vote with a manipulated vote to favor the candidates who support Technocracy.
• Technocracy is in opposition to free will, free choice, and free speech of individuals.
• Technocracy is in opposition to Christianity and every other form of faith and religion.
• A fair equivalence of the concept of “Technocracy” in today’s popular jargon is “Deep State.”

Technocracy is indeed our new religion with our Federal Government being the new church. Those of us who disagree with its doctrines will be cancelled and punished in ways we have not yet imagined.

No! Everyone does NOT “deserve” a living wage…

The hoards of leftist wannabe socialists in the US are promoting a laundry list of socialist ideals for the US.

Here are just five:

• Everyone deserves a living wage
• College should be free
• National borders are immoral; all immigrants deserve our help
• We need to invest billions to reverse climate change
• People of color deserve preference in all things if not reparations for our past wrongs

Each of these topics requires a book or two to explain how idiotic and counterproductive each is, but I’ll provide what should be the obvious essence.

Everyone deserves a living wage:

I recall a 4th or 5th grade American history class that described the fate of the first settlements along our east coast in Jamestown in 1607 and later in Plymouth in 1620. The leaders concocted the notion that everyone deserves free food. Few worked for it. Most ended up starving because food production failed. It took that failed system and hundreds of deaths to finally realize two things worked a lot better:  No work/no eat, and if people can keep and profit from what they work for they will produce more.

Why does everyone “deserve” a living wage? What is a “wage” anyway?  Especially what is a “living” wage? “Wage” is “the price of labor.” Socialists distort the definition, making wage for no labor mean “gift.”  So really, socialists want to give everyone a “living gift” for doing nothing.

“Deserve” is another trigger word.  Advertisers love to use that word. “You deserve that Escalade.”  “You deserve that cruise to the Caribbean”  Bulls—t!  No you don’t.  You worked for it and paid for it. You don’t “deserve” it. Deserve is cheapened into “something for nothing”, just because you exist.

No, everyone does NOT “deserve” a living wage. That ignores human nature. It ignores the fact that we need to be motivated to produce – and I don’t mean “re-produce” – that comes naturally. 

And shouldn’t the failure of third world nations that embarked on the socialist experiment tell us something? Obviously it doesn’t teach the socialist wannabees a thing.

College should be free:

No, it shouldn’t. For a number of great reasons.

• It would cheapen the value of college.  We don’t need more useless “Critical race theory”, “Gender studies”, “Dance” “Feminist theory” and “Disruption/Community Organizing” majors. A number of websites list useless college majors.  HERE is one.
• Not everyone who is made to believe college is for them has the aptitude for it, in spite of discriminatory “affirmative action.”
• There is a greater need for technical skills, many of which earn much more than many college degrees.

National borders are immoral; all immigrants deserve our help:

Nope.  National borders have been the guardian of laws and order and advanced cultures throughout human history. They are in fact the basis of morality – the most effective means of keeping immoral and lawless hoards from wrecking havoc in a nation. A borderless region is nothing but space for itinerants and nomads – folks who aren’t necessarily known for a decent standard of living and human advancement.

And no, not all immigrants deserve our help. There’s that trick word “deserve” again. Why do they “deserve” our help?  There are 100’s of millions of people in the world whose standard of living is below the poverty level of US citizens. Do they “deserve” to be in the US?  Why are they in the condition they are in?  Are we responsible for their condition? In 99.9% of those situations, no, we have no responsibility.  In 99.9% of those situations, it is from their own poor governance, immorality, or crude habits.  They would bring their failure-prone culture here. The results should not be difficult to imagine.  Just look an Minneapolis and Detroit. 

We need to invest billions to reverse climate change:

No, we don’t.  Why not?  Because climate ALWAYS changes.  It changed before there was a United States. It’s changed for millennia. Man has as much influence on the nature of climate change as a gnat's fart on the moon. The sun and the earths molten core have an infinitely greater influence. To believe a few billion dollars here and a few billion there to radically convert our sources of energy to unproven and unreliable options is a fool’s errand. The John Kerry’s of the world are a bane on our economy and the world. We produce a tiny fraction of carbon emission of China or India. They ignore the memo and good for them.  The memo isn’t worth the ink its written with.

People of color deserve preference in all things - if not reparations for our past wrongs:

Ah yes, my least favorite popular racist expression:  People of color. The term “people of color” is most often used in a pejorative sense against the people of “no color”, whites who are actually beige, a color.

No, people of color do not deserve discriminatory preference in anything.  Affirmative action outlived it usefulness a decade or two ago. Now such policies are bald-face discrimination against people of no color.

And reparations?  For people five generations removed from slaves who are now benefitting from those who eliminated slavery?  From people five generations removed who gave their lives for the elimination of slavery?  If anything, “people of color” owe people of “no color” for saving their “colorful” asses.

How the leftists and wokists define “hate”…

The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) is the opposite of its title, except the “Southern” part.  It is headquartered in Atlanta.  The Poverty and Law part of its name bear no resemblance to its mission any more than Antifa’s title relates to its mission:  Both lie, deceive, and wish to disparage and destroy the moral foundations of our nation.

Front Page Magazine, a conservative, anti-Communist website featuring David Horowitz and Jamie Glazov, was recently de-platformed by Disqus.  Disqus is the “comments” utility used by 10’s of thousands of web sites. Diana West’s(conservative blogger and author of Death of the Grownup), Pamela Geller’s (featuring the Islamic nuisance), D. James Kennedy Ministries and hundreds of other conservative or Christian sites have also been scrubbed by Disqus or it’s leftist, woke, censoring  corporate behemoths.

From Front Page:

On March 3^rd the Editors at FrontPage received an email from Disqus, the networked community platform used by hundreds of thousands of sites all over the web.  The statement reads:

“It has come to our attention that your site is included in the Hate Groups listed on the Southern Poverty Law Center Hate Map:

“As fostering Hate is a violation of the Disqus Terms of Service and Basic Rules, we can no longer support your site on the Disqus network. Disqus will be removed from your site on March 17th, to allow time for transition and a comment export. If you will need a manual export, please let us know before the removal date.”

Yes, the SPLC has a “hate map.”  And many corporations mindlessly follow their deceiving, hateful advice about who and what they categorize as “hateful.”

What is their criteria for organizations and individuals listed on their “hate map?”  Here is a list of the beliefs that will get you on their s—t list:

• You believe in the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman.
• You believe there are two genders, male and female, period.
• You’ve commented negatively on social media about the homosexual lifestyle.
• You believe in the sanctity of life and are opposed to abortion.
• You demonstrated on behalf of Donald Trump or expressed words supporting him on social media.
• You believe in strong borders and putting the United States first in trade, national defense, and foreign relations.
• You don’t believe in mass amnesty.
• You don’t soft-peddle Islam.
• You believe the COVID death rate is misleading or have concerns about Big Pharma’s vaccines.
• You express a dim view of Black Lives Matter, rioters, or those who resist arrest.

The higher profile and more effective your messaging on any of the above topics has been, the more likely you, your website or your access to mainstream social media will be cancelled.  Fortunately, there are millions of us who express our thoughts “under the radar” and haven’t been cancelled by the powers that be – yet.

This list of “’hateful’ offenses against humanity” is pretty much the same as that used by Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Amazon, and others for cancelling their former users. And this cancelling, doxing, censorship of thought, opinion and ideas is still going on – full steam. I wonder if globalist corporations/social media just use the SPLC hate labels as a convenient “cover” for or confirmation of their own corporate values or if they just blindly follow? Probably both.

In either case, there is a selfish corporate war against the values that made this nation great, and on policies that, if implemented, would continue the US on that path.  Sadly we are now on a different path – one that does not bode well for our nation’s future.  We do indeed have a revolution on our hands.

The sooner conservatives, libertarians, and traditional Christians can move their reading and conversations over to newly created, conservative-friendly sites like Parler, Gab, Frank, Rumble, and others, the more effective we will be in the battle against the thought control corporate media has imposed on us. That is the very least we should be doing.

Reasons for a successful Chauvin appeal…

The first thing to come to my mind after the Chauvin verdict is this:

Put yourself in the position of the jurors who live and work in Minneapolis and vicinity.  Even if you thought there was “reasonable doubt” about Chauvin’s guilt, what would your thoughts be if you were to render verdicts other than conviction on all three counts?  Would you experience fear?  Fear for your home, your work, your family, fear for yourself? The jury voted as they did out of FEAR.

The jury was not sequestered during the trial.  While they were instructed to not watch the news, I cannot imagine that they did not hear the news from any number of sources: Friends, family, co-workers.  Consider the news of the pigs head on the doorstep of one of the defense witnesses two days before jury sequestration.  Consider the mob rule and violence in Minneapolis for weeks after the death of George Floyd. Consider the words of prominent Democrats who, in so many words, promoted violence if the verdict was not as it was.  Consider the words of the President and Vice President urging conviction.

What were some of the points in favor of the defense that should have elicited “reasonable doubt?”

• The criminal record of Floyd
• The drug use of Floyd
• The current amount of drugs in Floyd’s body
• The typical strength and aggressive, unpredictable behavior of drug-imbued individuals
• The weight differential between Chauvin and Floyd
• The resistance to arrest shown by Floyd
• The police accommodating Floyd’s request to be laid on the ground instead of into the back of the police vehicle
• The typical actions of those resisting arrest saying they “can’t breath” or any other handy excuse.

Were these points clearly and forcibly enough explained by the defense?  If they were, was the jury intimidated into reaching their guilty verdict on all three counts?

Were the police officials, including the Chief, who testified against Chauvin that he violated department policy just protecting their own domains?  Could the defense have brought in many other witnesses from other policing agencies to testify that the restraint used, as well as its duration, was reasonable under the circumstances?

The case was lost as soon as the judge denied the requested change of venue.

There was no change of venue from a city whose leadership and much of the population demonstrated before, during and after the riots that they were anti-police and handcuffed law-enforcement.

The Chauvin trial was a textbook example of a Kangaroo Court assuring that the jury was intimidated into their verdict by fear from a hostile, anti-police community.

An appeal is justified in a jurisdiction outside of Hennepin County for all the above reasons.

And one more thought: