Why do the people who spend every day online dictating to everyone how society should be organized and how we should live our lives also act exactly like high school kids?
Perhaps one of the most frustrating parts about this was just the blanket denial of Trump's first term that made the failures of his second term so predictable.
Your commentary should come with a large asterisk if you're surprised by the outcome of Trump 2.0
Why is it always “repeal women’s right to vote because they’re responsible for the massive authoritarian government we have now” and never “all government inherently expands and encroaches because those in power always want more of it”? 🥱
Are there any political commentators with name recognition who are actually in it for the ideas, not just branding and money? There is a grifter pandemic happening right now.
Once everyone hates each other over spoon fed ideological belief systems, we can all sit alone in our pods and eat the bugs while the elites control the world around us.
If you’re still waiting on politicians and government to save you, you will continue to need saving:
They will keep creating problems while providing “solutions” that conveniently grant them more authority, which will cause even more problems that they will inevitably promise to solve.
As the political rhetoric gets louder, charged with more hate, and espousing clear propaganda…
I remind you all that you can step away. You don’t have to agree with or support them. You can just walk away and live your best life.
❤️
It’s humbling to travel to places where you don’t speak the language.
It’s good to get outside the U.S. and realize that other countries and people are pretty great too.
I just covered this on Jimmy’s show. Flock is being used as the very public fall guy while they shift to using other, less known, surveillance brands. Don’t get hung up on the flock of it all. Fight against surveillance in general.
Many Americans have been taught that the only real threat to free-market capitalism is communism or socialism. That false narrative has been one of the most effective propaganda victories of the last century. If every economic policy that isn’t communist is labeled “capitalist,” politicians can abandon free-market principles while claiming to defend them.
The American story tells a different lesson. The spirit behind Independence Day wasn't just about political freedom. It was also a rejection of an economic system where government power picked winners and losers. The founders were rebelling against mercantilism.
Long before communism existed, governments were undermining free markets through mercantilism—a system in which political and corporate power work together to protect favored industries, stifle competition, and concentrate wealth among those with the strongest connections.
For decades—and now more openly under Donald Trump—the Republican Party has wrapped itself in the language of capitalism while embracing policies that resemble mercantilism. They do not oppose government intervention in the economy. They oppose intervention that benefits anyone outside their preferred allies. Subsidies, bailouts, targeted tariffs, corporate favoritism, and regulations that shield established firms from competition are not features of free-market capitalism. They are hallmarks of government-directed markets.
We’ve been conditioned to believe that redistribution only counts when money flows downward. But subsidies, regulatory favoritism, bailouts, tax carve-outs, and political privilege are still redistribution. This is mercantilism.
The Boston Tea Party was a protest against the Tea Act of 1773, which granted the struggling East India Company special advantages backed by the British government. Parliament was rescuing a politically connected corporation and giving it advantages over colonial merchants. Americans threw tea into Boston Harbor because they rejected a system where government picked winners and losers.
Mercantilism enriched European empires through monopolies, protectionism, and political favoritism. Wealth flowed to the connected while competition and consumer choice suffered.
Today’s version—neo-mercantilism—follows the same pattern. Governments subsidize favored industries, protect incumbents, manipulate trade, and treat economic success as something to be engineered through political power rather than earned through competition. Both major parties participate in this trend, though the Trump-era Republican Party has embraced it most openly under the banner of economic nationalism.
Regulatory capture reinforces the system. Large corporations influence the agencies meant to regulate them, shaping rules that smaller competitors struggle to meet. In pharmaceuticals, patent strategies and regulatory barriers can delay generic competition. In emerging industries like artificial intelligence, major firms have supported regulatory frameworks critics say would be far easier for established companies to navigate than for startups. The result is predictable: the rules protect those already on top.
Adam Smith wrote The Wealth of Nations as a critique of mercantilism, not communism. Communism didn’t yet exist. The threat to economic liberty in Smith’s time was a political class aligned with powerful commercial interests to control markets for mutual benefit. Smith argued that prosperity came from competition, voluntary exchange, and limiting government’s ability to distort markets.
That should sound familiar.
The greatest threat to free markets is not always government ownership of industry. Sometimes it is government management of private industry for the benefit of those with the most political influence. We spent so much of the twentieth century fearing communism across the sea that we failed to notice mercantilism when it returned wrapped in patriotic language, calling itself capitalism, and standing in our foyer.
The Pledge of Allegiance is a socialist propaganda tool.
Forcing kids to recite it every day normalizes the idea that government deserves automatic allegiance.
A truly free society encourages independent thought, voluntary patriotism, and devotion to principles of liberty.
Screw that!!!
Americans don’t need a political party to wage a righteous, peaceful REVOLUTION of civil disobedience and mass non-compliance @TuckerCarlson.
Screw the gatekeepers.
Screw the partisan media.
Screw the politicians.
I’m OVER IT.
The ONLY logical stance to take is complete and total distrust of the government.
Every single member, institution, and agency.
Trusting any individual or part of the government is not only naive, but it is truly dangerous.
Stop trusting your oppressors.
The Trump psyop is so multi-layered and undeniably genius.
The establishment has successfully conditioned both parties to focus on Trump for all the wrong reasons.
He's not Hitler, like Democrats think. And he's not a savior, like Republicans think.
He is a very convincing, consuming, and charismatic actor, who will absolutely be selected this election, so he can continue to distract supporters of both parties.
Meanwhile, the technocrats and global cabal who fund them will move forward with implementing all of the policies we've been successfully distracted from.
They will "end the Fed"... and replace it with CBDC.
They will "control the borders"... with biometric surveillance.
They will implement a "voter ID"... that will become your digital ID.
They will present "The Everything App"... that will manage your social credit score.
This won't happen overnight, but it will happen, unless we stop the madness now. We are consumed by a scripted reality TV show. It might be entertaining, but continuing to be distracted by it will only solidify our digital prison.
Make no mistake: the technocratic pied piper is Trump, and Americans of all political leanings are following his tune down to the river.
Each one of these accounts has an artificially huge following. Yet as individuals represent a very small percentage of the conversation. Despite that, this ecosystem has the ability to give a false impression of what the majority thinks. This platform is playing you.