Publisher Bill Collier

Political Prosecutions To The Right, Coverups To The Left

Bill Collier July 1, 2021

The myriad of federal and state laws and regulations individuals, let alone major corporate entities, have to follow mean it is impossible to follow them all unless you are a perfect human being. Basically this means we are all counted as suspects and if some prosecutor decides they want to take us down, they need only spend a few years and million of dollars to manufacture charges against us.

Based on the chicken-scratch “crimes” of not counting benefits properly and therefore not paying taxes on them, a New York political hack prosecutor has ginned up indictments against Trump Organization members and the corporate entity itself. The goal is to roast the victims until they offer something juicy to eventually put Trump in chains.

This is blatant abuse and this exposes how the massive, inarticulate, and confusing tax code, plus all the other codes, are not used to protect us but to hamstring us and make it easy to take us down when some hack gets a hankering for our hides.

To the right, as in to anyone on the right who becomes a vocal critic of the left, it’s all political prosecutions based on the smallest violations of laws and regulations none of us can possibly follow. But, to the left, even when laws are blatantly violated, as in Hilary Clinton’s illegal private server, the cover-up is in force, officials and prosecutors seek only to make it all no big deal.

One wonders how all this will play out, whether the intended victims, anyone to the right of Marx it seems, will take this lying down. If indeed a former President and billionaire can be taken down on some petty and inconsequential charges, when the likelihood every lefty billionaire is doing MUCH WORSE every day, then who is safe?

The need to destroy Trump is really a desire to put the rest of us in our place.

But will we go quietly into the night?

The Next Digital Revolution

Bill Collier July 1, 2021

The decentralization of digtial platforms into an interconnected network of diverse niche communities with deep immersive experiences is web 3.0 and it is coming, whether the technocracy likes it or not.

This is not about the fears of tech censorship or tech bias, this is about the emergence of smarter, more robust technologies and the natural human desire to cluster around and with people who they easily identify with. The natural tendency for people is to want to cluster with people who share something of deep value, be it a belief system, values, lifestyle, interests, skills, or really anything that touches you at the level of identify.

What does this mean, “touches you at the level of identity?” Basically, it’s something so special to you, it is felt and often expressed as if it is part of your identity. I may say, “I am a military collector”, which is different than saying, “I have some military items in a collection.”

In web 2.0 we saw the emergence of meta platforms predicated on the cocnept of an open internet and free speech. While some clustering occurred, basically, they were wide open spaces where almost anything was allowed. Then came web 2.5, almost in some ways a seeming devolution, but in reality a precursor to web 3.0.

In web 2.5 the people paying the bills, the big money people of the corporate world, started worrying about brand friendliness. Also, policy-makers worried about content that was hateful or false and some worried more about decency. Users were overwhelmed with things they didn’t necessarily like or want to even see at all.

What were essentially wild west platforms that focused on attracting everyone of every interest on a more shallow relational basis now found themselves having to engage in much tighter governance. You see, the more you try to control or limit content, the more standards and fact-checking you create, the more difficult and expensive it is to run these platforms.

Good governance requires more than spitting out standards and fact-checking norms. It requires human-powered governance, as in actual people providing governance. But the response to bottom-line conscious platforms is to use algorithms and robots to replace humans, and of any group of people gang-report content, even of that content isn’t what they say it is, a seeming arbitrary suspension or ban takes place.

Governance is way beyond “moderation”, it is guidance and support to participants, treating them like adults and with dignity, and giving them support, not just deciding whether to ban them! Web 3.0 governance will be much more transparent and participatory than anything we have seen before.

We propose that people don’t want to be enmeshed into a virtual community or platform that has content or characters they find disagreeable. The public demand for free speech platforms may not be what some think it is. Nobody has done a study to see what exactly people like, but what we can see is that free speech platforms, while they have an audience, are not capturing any major market share.

This doesn’t mean free speech platforms aren’t desired by enough people to potentially make them viable. They can be viable, but they cannot be the predominant virtual community.

We don’t have a market research study showing exactly what kind of online environment people will tend most to favor. But we all know the human tendency to form cliques and to cluster with people of some like identity and affection. People tend to look more for affirmation than for things that challenge their beliefs, for instance.

The problems with both the meta platforms that started as one thing and are trying to become another and with the free speech alternatives may come down to the issues of governance, it being expensive, brand safety, because as free platforms they need mega sponsors, and this tendency humans to essentially seek affirmation and support from people they identify with.

On one hand, people want to cluster with people they identify with. On the other hand, they want to connect with people more broadly and to express themselves to the world at large. That being said, many just want to be entertained and to have affirmation in the process, they don’t really want or need broader connections online.

Web 3.0 has to both provide these more niche communities people can participate in, and, we predict, they will desire a more immersive experience with participants engaged in all aspects of the community, from content curation to governance. The wall between administration, governance, and participants (as opposed to “users”) will become more blurred: participants will become stakeholders.

While these niche communities will be necessary, it will also be necessary for tomorrow’s netizens to have a way to gather content and data from multiple places in one dashboard and to be able to push content through that dashboard to multiple niche communities or to free speech communities.

Common standards for connecting these communities through API hooks or many other means will emerge and various providers may supply dashboards for people to connect to all these niche communities.

We also foresee that the era of mostly free platforms paid for mostly by mega corporate sponsors will give way to a mostly paid subscription model as participants, again, instead of just users, take control of their data and advertisers focus more on placing their content in PLACES likely visited by their demographic than through serving content across all the virtual spaces to specifically targeted individuals.

The issue of advertising online in the future is a bit off subject, but is somewhat related. Advertising isn’t going away, but the halcyon days where anyone without real advertising smarts could use intimate user data to easily send their content to exactly the right person may be over. The old tried and true methods of scientific advertising targeted to places where your demographic are likely to be found will rule again. The lazy marketer who only knows how to use computer-assisted audience selection will struggle.

Who knows if this sudden stripping of access to that kind of user data will continue. The pressure by the corporate advertisers may be immense, unless they find the new environment actually makes it harder for smaller advertising and would-be competitors to engage.

We envision web 3.0 will be dominated by a decentralized web of mostly niche communities but a few major providers of something like a dashboard that allows people to connect to multiple spaces more conveniently. We foresee these communities will be more immersive and participatory and the line between administrators, governance staff, and participants will be more blurred.

Demand A Right to Self-Preservation, Not Just “The Second Amendment”

Bill Collier June 30, 2021

The Second Amendment debate is wrapped around the axles a reinterpretative legalism and history revisionism, with both sides claiming absolutely that the framers of the Bill of Rights meant precisely what they mean. Getting lost in this word salad thicket of contradiction and wishful thinking sidesteps the deeper truth, a truth which is more sublime than the Second Amendment and which questions the entire basis of the Westphalian order of the nation-state as the prime mover in human civilization.

Let us assume we must craft a legal standard akin to the Bill of Rights which is considered so inviolate that even attempting to pass a law or policy against its standard of justice is considered at least a misdemeanor worthy of permanent disqualification from holding public office or even holding the voting franchise.

To what authority or standards of reason, logic, or justice do we appeal? Ultimately, we are forced to make a priori assumptions amenable to most everyone. As even the Declaration of Independence says, “we hold these truths to be self-evident that all men (*they meant all HUMANS) are created equal” and that they are endowed by their Creator (whether you calls that Creator God or natural evolution) with certain “inalienable rights”, among which “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

This is all a priori assumption. Our 21st century declaration of independence might begin thus:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident that in advancing the cause of a free and pluralistic society, which is our natural human state as ordered by the Universe, all human beings are created and deemed by law and custom to be equal in value, worth, dignity, and right and that they are inherently endowed with inalienable rights including life, liberty, self-determination, self-preservation, self-expression, and freewill participation through mutual agreement along with the inherent sovereign power to protect their sacred rights, persons, and property from hazards and harms, official or unofficial, foreign or domestic.”

We would further add that each individual elector owns a right to freely participate in the powers of petition, election, initiative, redress, and recall and to have and form their own families, extended families, free associations, communities of trust within a fraternal bond, and national communities as autompmous sociocultural and socioeconomic core constituent entities within our diverse and pluralistic commonwealth.

Again, these are a priori assumptions one either believes or does not believe. But the problem here is that if one believes these assumptions are true then believing thus does no harm to those who disagree, unless the freedom of others grieves them, while those who disagree and wish to deny such freedom must necessarily coerce the Freedomist into compliance.

The Freedomist imagines a world of diverse sociocultural and socioeconomic structures and communities, expressing nationhood in diverse ways but within a common standard of a sort of meta-nationhood based on a Freedomist standard of justice and peace. The anti-freedomist sees a world of much more narrow restrictions because they don’t really trust the freewill choices of others. They can easily disregard these so-called rights, except perhaps in a most narrow, restrictive interpretation.

President Biden’s assault on the Second Amendment, while also factually wrong in its claims gun control and restrictions on weapons were present “from the beginning”, is a radical anti-freedomist. His interpretation and understanding of the Second Amendment makes a hash of the basic right to self-preservation.

The Bidens of this world have a normative view of society: they imagine something in theory and assume they can use the law and public policy to make it so. Freedomists tend toward a more descriptive view of society based on nature, human nature, and the laws of cause and effect and then seek policies that contribute the most to the individual and common good and that reflect this framework of reality.

The right to self-preservation is an a priori assumption. You either think each person and then their primary communities of trust is the prime mover of human civilization therefore owns a right to self-preservation or you do not.

But were we to assume that this right exists and were we not using the legalism of the Second Amendment debate to frame it, but only our a priori assumption, what would our concept of an inherent right to self-preservation look like?

We will make the assumption, which seems logical and fits with human nature as it is, that as self-preservation cannot solely be achieved as a lone individual against any save a few other people, it stands to reason this right is, uniquely among any others, a corporate/collective right that is shared among a body of people. Again, it no more matters to us the ideological or legalistic intent of the framers of the Bill of Rights than it mattered to them how the framers of the English Constitution intended their (unwritten) provisions.

We often say we defend liberty as defined by the original spirit and intent of the US Bill of Rights, and as to the Second Amendment, the spirit and intent is deeper than the legalistic interpretation according to the Courts.

We claim that the right to self-preservation is in fact an inherent right owned by the electors in any given commomwealth and this right applies to the individual, their primary community of trust, and the other constituent entities of the commonwealth. Moreover, we claim, regardless of the legal reading and interpretation, that this understanding is far more consistent with the original spirit and intent of than the way Biden interprets it.

The practice of this right can occur at the individual level, but, we propose, as it is also a shared right, its implementation necessarily differs based on the scale of its practice. Basically this means how one practices this right, even what weapons one may access or prerequisite for their use, might differ. Those who argue whether this is alone an individual right or a alone a collective right, miss the spirit and intent of the right to self-preservation, which is all of these things at once.

The inherent right to self-preservation also runs up against a novel of the Westphalian nation-state concept. This novelty is predicated on the notions that the state is the prime mover in human civilization, that nationhood is best expressed and preserved in the form of a national state, and, therefore, that this state is the primary bearer of arms and owns a monopoly of force beyond the limited individual right to self-preservation.

The Peace of Westphalia of 1648 set this course and never has the idealistic promise of an international order of such nation-states been achieved. To be sure, if all national peoples who were large enough to be able to sustain themselves, and if different smaller nations of people formed confederal unions for mutual support, we might have a world of over 1000 nation-states or national comfederal unions, and that might be ideal.

But in the 21st century we have multiple ways to express sovereignty and to form sociocultural and socioeconomic bonds with people from around the world. The very scope of nationhood and sovereignty goes well beyond the old limits of geography, ancestry, distance we can travel, and ease with which larger associations can be formed.

We often call ourselves “nationists” instead of “nationalists”, because our concept and practices of nationhood transcend this 17th century civilizational paradigm, the Westphalian nation-state. A nationist believes every national people have a right to self-preservation and includes within the scope of alternative forms of sovereignty, such an enhanced NGO, fraternal benefit societies, domestic fraternal nations, and tribal entities, among other structures.

The idea that the “state” has a “monopoly of force” is inconsistent with either an individual or a shared right to self-preservation. While it is understandable that the scope of the means of self-preservation may vary between individuals, local communities, free associations, and the state and its subdivisions, in general, we hold that the right to self-preservation is inviolate.

We will not delve too far into our conception of this distributed magisterial and imperial mandate, which basically means that the state cannot ever be considered to hold a monopoly in such matters, beyond saying, for instance, a “tribal” structure like a society would not have nuclear missiles, but it (along with community constabulary companies) would likely have anything equivalent to a light infantry regiment, and an individual may have more limitations still, especially if they are not part of a local constabulary company.

Again, setting aside the argument as to the legal definition and meaning of the Second Amendment, which we see as an individual AND a shared right, we see the right to self-preservation as something that includes a responsibility. In essence, access to certain means of self-preservation may require some form of participation in local or other forms of mutual self-preservation, e.g. a local constabulary company (like the militia of colonial America but not like the private militia groups of our day).

We then move on to a ticklish issue: who has a right to keep and bear arms? In general, again, setting aside the present legal structures and laws, we tend to see a separation between mere citizenship and electorship. Electors are stakeholders who earn their status through merit alone, everyone is free to become an elector regardless of race or gender, so long as they adhere to and uphold the country’s charter and something like the Bill of Rights.

The ability to determine who meets this requirement is critical to the preservation of a country and its constituent nations of people. The abuse of this concept, for the purpose of preventing blacks in the south to vote, is morally repugnant. But this racism is most definitely NOT part of this idea: electorship should be earned, not assumed by birth or residency, and it should both be open to all and access to the means of gaining qualifications for electorship should be freely available to all without cost.

The concept of electorship is not part of the present American system and nor will that ever likely change. But the concept of electorship informs our view of self-preservation. The state does not own a monopoly on force, we strongly oppose that archaic notion! But the body of people, in the form of their diverse national societies (societies based on a nationality) and local communities, as well as the state and its constituent entities, as stakeholders, do own a monopoly on force.

In practical terms this means that while citizens own a right to self-preservation at a basic level, they do not have the same level of access to the means of self-preservation as the electors and their corporate bodies or the state.

Again, we are talking theory here, not prescribing policies or laws for America. What we are saying is that the right to self-preservation transcends the Bill of Rights and is both individual and corporate and includes, we think, the right for local communities in an egalitarian constabulary and of private societies based on shared nationhood, to share the monopoly of force with the state.

The workarounds for this may be forming local community policing initiatives which transform the hired police into a mostly voluntary constabulary force, the use of private security cooperatives, efforts to lobbh states to create local state-funded civil defense groups, and a robust defense of the Second Amendment.

As to this concept of electorship, it seems a good idea this country will never adopt, but it does explain our stance on self-preservation as an individual and shared right that comes with responsibilities.

As with most Freedomist ideas, our approach here is mostly on things we can do within existing frameworks to actualize our ideas and convictions. Private efforts like outdoors, hunting, and fishing clubs and security cooperatives coupled with promoting Freedom Sanctuaries and reforming local policing (community policing through a citizen’s constabulary) do not require a change in federal laws or the Constitution can fulfill in spirit this concept of self-preservation.

Hatred Against The Faithful- Fascism Has A New Banner

Bill Collier June 29, 2021

Moses told Pharoah, “let my people go!” His demand, prior to the Exodus itself, was simple: let the children of Israel worship (and, by extension, serve and live for) their God in peace. This demand did not necessitate losing the Hebrews as a work force or expelling them from Egypt.

In the realpolitik and reality of power of ancient Egypt, the children of Israel were slaves under the bondage of what was then one of the great superpowers of its day. Not only were the children of Israel exploited for their labor, but not even their basic religious sentiments and values were respected.

In the realpolitik and reality of power in America nothing looms larger as a cudgel aimed in hateful violence toward the heart of historic Christian moral and religious orthodoxy than the rainbow authoritarianism that demands silence of opponents and even willful participation as a sign of wokeness. Fascism has a new banner, a rainbow banner that must be worshipped on pain of banishment!

(Special note: we separate the rainbow fascists from the actual LGBTQ community who are, overwhelmingly, tolerant and decent people. Of course, the rainbow fascists will equate push-back against their blatant totalitarian intolerance to hatred of LGBTQ individuals, which is a patently absurd libel.)

Hatred against the faithful for their adherence to historic Christian orthodoxy out of a sincere desire to worship, serve, and live for their God in peace is pretty much the heart of the rainbow authoritarian agenda. The aim has never been to elevate some downtrodden class, it has always been to downgrade others and force the majority view into the closet.

We will always say, come what may, “an advanced culture is based on a man and women married for life raising their own biological or adopted children within the maternal enclosure of a nurturing extended family and larger community of trust. ” The gender-bent rainbow authoritarian culture (which is NOT representative of the LGBTQ individual) is a dystopian, savage, and barbaric throwback to primitivism and debauchery, in the eyes of advanced culture.

It remains true, that though we accept, not just tolerate, all people as spiritually sovereign individuals made in the image of their Creator, and though we ourselves would never countenance censoring or inerfering with the basic right of freewill participation by others, based on whatever their sociocultural values are, it will never be enough.

The rainbow authoritarians hate the faithful and yet do not love the people and communities they claim to represent. In fact many of the people in whose name these totalitarians act are among the first to disavow such anti-freedom bigotry. Rainbow fascism, as it is emerging, is more about hatred for those who adhere to historic Judeo-Christian orthodoxy than anything else.

People who are secure in their convictions and whose rights are respected have no need to impose on or punish anyone for merely disagreeing and for choosing their own way of life through their acts of individual conviction and freewill participation.

The punishment of speech that the rainbow fascists don’t like, because it is based on embracing advanced culture rather than what we may see as primitive self-indulgence (knowing of course not everyone agrees), is intolerance itself which we cannot abide and will never submit to.

It doesn’t matter that we have a live and let live attitude or that we don’t feel our concept and practice of what we see as advanced culture needs the coercive power of thr state to force compliance. It does not matter if we genuinely respect others who beliefs, values, and convictions differ. Unless we both applaud the rainbow culture and even participate happily, we are bigots and targets for cancelation.

The average person who may identify with some form of LGBTQ or etc (letters keep getting added), probably wants nothing to do with the rainbow woke cancel culture and its gross and intolerable authoritarianism. They literally do not care if someone disagrees with them as long as their rights are respected and they certainly don’t think a refusal to participate in their way of life is a sign of bigotry.

We who hold that advanced culture rests on marriage between one man and one woman who, unless they are not fertile*, raise their own biological or adopted children within an extended family and larger community of trust do not think people who disagree are bad or inferior or don’t have the same rights as we do. But, as noted, that’s not good enough for the rainbow fascists.

(*Marriage is not solely about children, it is a union between a man and woman that depicts the union between Christ and the Church and is, therefore, Holy in and of itself. Couples do not simply get married to raise children. The focus here is that children have a right and deserve to experience a loving home wherein a marriage mother and father, whether biological or adopted, raise them.)

You don’t agree with our view on the basis of advanced culture? So be it. We embrace the concept of a free and pluralistic society of equals, therefore you and whatever you deem a marriage or a family are free to proceed as you wish. You are not free to censor our beliefs on what constitutes advanced culture and your friendship with us should not be based on our agreement in this vital, but private, aspect of your life.

We do not agree with intolerance or bigotry. But the loose definitions of those terms, which are now crimes in the eyes of some, has become weaponized against mostly the Judeo-Christian who holds to historic orthodoxy. It is beyond the pale, it is a gross injustice, and is the very picture of what bigotry and intolerance look like.

If your views and beliefs are so weak that they cannot sustain refutation or refusal to participate, then you are the problem. This is true whether one is demanding adherence to the historical orthodoxy of the Judeo-Christian tradition or the new unorthodoxy of the rainbow culture.

But today, at this hour, it is not the Judeo-Christian faithful who have any power to impose their sociocultural norms and it is not this community that is seeking cultural hegemony by brute force. The rainbow fascists hate the faithful, that is why they continue to devise new ways to force people between bowing to the new rainbow culture or refusing to compromise their convictions and being canceled out of society, as if banished.

The rainbow fascists are not the LGBTQ folks, who mostly just don’t care about who agrees with them or not. The rainbow fascists are ideological extremists for whom the LGBTQ community is a perfect excuse for their totalitarianism.

PROPOSED Bill of Rights Sanctuary, Collier County, FL

Bill Collier June 28, 2021

The Collier County Commissioners are set to vote on July 13th to approve a “Bill of Rights Sanctuary” ordinance.

“Collier County has the right to be free from the commanding hand of the federal government and has the right to refuse to cooperate with federal government officials in response to unconstitutional federal government measures, and to proclaim a Bill of Rights Sanctuary for law-abiding citizens in its cities and county,” the ordinance reads.

The ordinance is different from the Freedom Sanctuary ordinance we would propose, but is very much in the same spirit.

There are 5 commissioners, 2 solidly for it, 1 who raises what some see as petty trifling “concerns” but who is afraid to be against it, 1 opposed but who has given some reasons for why they might support it, and one just opposed. As for the public, 25 people spoke for the ordinance and none spoke against it.

Predictably, the County’s head attorney opposes it and both warns of negative consequences while claiming the Sheriff cannot enforce the ordinance. The Sheriff stood in wholehearted support.

While public sentiment may favor this ordinance, which prohobits any county personnel or resources to be used to enforce laws that violate the Constitutional rights of citizens, it would appear the top County officials are looking for a way to block the ordinance without appearing to be opposed to its sentiment. It remains to be seen how the public comments and, frankly, weasal language of certain officials will play with the public and whether public pressure will mount to side with the ordinance.

Bomber Biden’s War Plan

Bill Collier June 28, 2021

The endless wars abroad, in which young Americans suffer and die battling enemies of the global oligarchy, are ramping up as Bomber Biden gets into his stride.

In the latest round of bombings, US troops set within a foreign land were set upon by angry, Iran-backed, local militias. The predictable outcome was a series of bombings by the US against bases held by these militias. While it is certainly true these militia thugs, backed by Iran, are bad people with bad ideas, it may not be true the US has any parochial interest ourselves in fighting them.

As for our country, suffering under growing inflation, a weird job crisis, and this internal sociocultural crisis launched by radicals who represent Biden’s core base, there is nothing the American people csn gain from choosing sides in Syria or Iraq.

Credit where credit is due, one Goerge Bush (the elder) began this adventurist wars in mostly Islamic lands debacle with the first Gulf War. The US fought and bled to liberate Kuwait after Iraq invaded in reason to Kuwait blatantly stealing millions upon millions of barrels of oil from Iraq through cross-drilling.

Perhaps letting a former CIA bigwig become President wasn’t the smartest thing the US ever did.

After 911 the US had every right to put a massive hurting to all those powers that either backed or otherwise enabled Al Qeuda and their Wahabist ideology. Backing the Afghanistanis who wanted to overthrow the Taliban, letting them do the fighting on the ground for their own freedom, was certainly within the scope of legitimate responses. But so also would severing ties with Saudi Arabia unless they abandoned their global effort to impart the Wahabist ideology, a key component of which was violent jihad.

As it stands now, after George the younger finished the destabilizing work his father started, which may itself have been the “justification” the Wahabist terrorists needed to gain recruits and funding, the entire scene became a quagmire. From Egypt to Afghanistan, the spector of Islamic Jihad and the destabilization of the entire Islamic world, set on fire mostly through “Western intervention”, has cost hundreds of thousands of innocent lives and hasn’t improved a thing.

Enter now one Joe “The Bomber”, Biden, or “Bomber Biden” for short. His war plan seems to be the same as Biden the elder, Clinton, Bush the younger, and Obama. Only Trump tried, somewhat, to steer a different course but our woke coterie of globalist generals blocked him at every turn.

Truly, the United States of America in all our economic and military power has become nothing more than a giant cudgel to browbeat the world into submission to a band of globalist oligarchs whose interests do not align with our country’s parochial interests.

This thirst for imperialist dominion over all things and all people for the benefit of the few at the expense of the many is what drives Biden’s War Plan. It is calculated by the needs and interests of this global oligarchy and their planned “reset”, which amounts to modern feudalism.

It it is no wonder that Biden threatens Americans who refuse to abide his wacko interpretation of the Bill of Rights as a permission slip to deny the right of self-preservation even as he bombs bad guys whose success or failure is of no real concern to America’s parochial interests.

His militarism, imperialism, and authoritarianism are precisely what his oligarch overlords demand of him!

Trump Rumbles! The battle between alt tech and big tech truly begins!

Bill Collier June 27, 2021

Donald Trump joined the alt tech platform, Rumble, a YouTube competitor launched in 2013, soaring past 175k channel subscribers in 24 hours. With this we may say the battle between alt tech and big tech truly begins, albeit with alt tech starting very far behind big tech in every metric.

The move comes after much speculation the deplatformed former President would join multiple other platforms, including Twitter-like alt tech platform Parler. But some consider Rumble both a more stable and long-lived platform that isn’t as prone to crashes as the other platforms.

Expectations that many more users will flock to Rumble and that Trump’s account there will eventually eclipse his Twitter following may be premature as Trump had 88.9 million followers on Twitter. However, if in fact one saw anything approaching that on Rumble, it could disrupt the digital landscape as entities seeking to reach that audience would be forced to take Rumble into account for their advertising.

It remains to be seen whether this will significantly boost Rumble’s user base and make this platform a bit competitive with YouTube or even whether Trump’s presence there would be long-lived as this platform may have massive pressures from the corporate and media establishment to remove him. It is probable, however, that this will in fact double or triple Rumble’s user base over the next few months.

One flaw with the platform is that it is a digital platform and is less interactive than, say, Parler or Gab, unless you are producing video content. For non-producers it is more an entertainment platform they access than a platform they use to express themselves. People can watch video content on Trump’s account without subscribing to the platform.

As for President Trump, just how this enables him to connect to his user base and the world remains to be seen. Early promises of a Trump social media platform resulted in a solo micro blog that was abandoned and nothing more. It is not known if this move constitutes his final decision as to how he will approach having a social media presence, but the fact he has an account on Rumble may not necessarily mean his plans to create a new social media platform have been abandoned.

Our own effort to create a new social media platform, called “Upadaria”, as an e-learning, e-commerce, and social networking platform using gamification and a fictional future history, has shown the complexity in creating even a basic platform targeting tens of thousands of niche users. In our case, we are targeting more cosmopolitan but socially conservative Christians who enjoy gamification and immersive learning experiences and who desire to excell at life.

This audience is perhaps a few million people in the US and a few million abroad, especially considering this is a paid subscription based, not a free, platform. Creating a platform to reach the kinds of numbers Trump needs to make it viable is of a much higher magnitude in complexity. Our platform has absolutely no delusions we can become some form of alternative to big tech platforms or a minor competitor, but Trump will aim precisely at that goal and higher.

The work to build a platform that might be competitive with a major platform would be immense and simply having a lot funding would not necessarily shorten the development time. Trump’s platform, if it comes to pass, must be far more robust than our “Upadaria” platform because his target audience is at least 50 million people. The building of the features and user interface, security, hosting, and data infrastructure for such a task, not to mention the moderation and governance tools and manpower, may prove the biggest hurdles for Trump’s team.

We would not discount the notion a Trump social media platform is coming but its development may take more time than perhaps Trump’s digital team have estimated. It may also be far more expensive than projected with little in the way of a funding model to make it financially self-sustaining within even a few years. However, it is possible this new platform will have free and paid membership levels and, with Trump at the helm and all the personalities that would follow, it may be financially viable.

So far, the move to Rumble is perhaps a small opening salvo in the battle between alt tech and big tech for dominance of the digital space. Alt tech is not merely a David to a Goliath, however, it is a fly versus an elephant at this stage. Trump’s move to Rumble may actually, but it remains to be seen, make alt tech more like a David versus a Goliath within a few years.

America’s True Manifest Destiny: An Empire of Freedom

Bill Collier June 26, 2021

One great opportunity missed by America was when our country traded its true manifest destiny as an empire of freedom for a shallow interpretation that basically amounted to colonialism and land expansion. It may, or may not, be true that it was inevitable and perhaps a subordinate part of our destiny to span the breadth of this continent, but land acquisition was not the core of our manifest destiny.

Thomas Jefferson referred to this as an empire of liberty, we use the phrase empire of freedom because freedom, while it includes liberty, also includes virtue as its guide and independence through mutual and individual self-reliance as its primary means. Liberty is its aim.

When America began as a country, in 1776, it was poised to fulfill a destiny in history, ordained by God, to replace the even then declining Western Civilization with a new civilization founded upon four core ideals. These ideals, our spiritual constitution, were a Judeo-Christian interpretation and balanced application of Unity in diversity, Popular sovereignty, Democratic equality, and Rule of law.

It is sadly true that the way some have twisted and redefined these ideals to justify various versions of socialism or other authoritarian ideas may confuse their meaning today. But if, for instance, one reads Democratic equality as an appeal to wealth redistribution or a majority-rule dictatorship, then the true meaning of this ideal has been lost on them.

When these ideals are interpreted in a more sublime manner, based on a Judeo-Christian worldview and Scriptural foundation, and when they are held in balance with each other to define how we relate, associate, and practice governance with other people, they are powerful proof against all forms of authoritarianism. They are the spiritual constitution of an empire of freedom, an empire of decentralized power and wealth, an empire of diverse constituent entities like small republics and multiple nationalities.

In 1776 America had a long way to go to fulfill its manifest destiny. It still had embedded assumptions that contradicted these ideals, including slavery and other intolerant hierarchical status structures based on class, gender, or nationality. The treatment of some groups of people people by our government, like the infamous “Trail of Tears” and other atrocities, was inexcusable and totally at war with what God intended for our country.

It was however the arc of our history, bending ever toward our manifest destiny and founded on these core ideals, that made America good and that drew people from all over the world to come here and become Americans. The heart and soul of our country was always better than the behavior of our state governments and federal government.

Those who lack spiritual discernment may conflate the spiritual heart and soul of the America as an empire of freedom which God has ordained with the baneful acts of governments in this land who have all too often betrayed that manifest destiny.

America was, and we aim to revive this dream, a country destined as an empire of freedom to become the cradle of a new civilization founded upon the very same ideals of its spiritual constitution, the four core ideals as understood from a Judeo-Christian perspective.

It is from the initials for these core ideals, UPDR, that we derive the core ideology and philosophy that is the true heart of this country and the new civilization: UPaDaRianism, pronounced You-pah-daria-nism.

We can say that America was meant to become a UPDR, or Upadarian, Commonwealth of diverse republics and national peoples all within a Union founded upon these core ideals. When the concept of an empire of freedom is truly applied to every human being in this land and when everyone who carries the weight and responsibility of citizenship embraces this manifest destiny as the true litmus test for every policy and every leader, this land will be blessed like never before.

This concept of a Upadarian Commonwealth in which every citizen has the same level and quality of liberty within a freedom predicated on virtue, liberty, and independence, is the true ideology of a new civilization which this land was meant to give birth to.

Something happened on the way to a Upadarian Commonwealth. America’s heart and soul were turned away from the path of fulfillment and seduced by alien spirits into a more dangerous and increasingly authoritarian path. America became and today remains a federal state without a living soul, an animatronic absurdity recolonized by Western Civilization and turned into its plunder.

Today, America’s military and economic might are largely exploited for globalist power holders and powerful exploiters without a moral foundation. Americans die on foreign shores to advance interests that are hostile to their own and that are at war against our manifest destiny. The gods of mammon, molech, and bacchus rule the land with ruthless ambition.

The petty battle between right and left over pittances and scraps occurs even as the globalist ruling class, whose only country is their portfolio or the corporations they control, steal the treasure and turn our population into serfs. The “great reset” is simply a new feudalism!

Of the two major parties today, only the Republicans still include a substantial base of people who are more or less sympathetic to the spirit of America’s true manifest destiny and its underlying philosophy, even if they don’t use or know its name, Upadarianism.

But the modern, and globalist, robber baron class have their hooks in both parties. They almost, but not perfectly, control the entire political show. They know whoever “wins”, most of the time, we lose and the robbers win.

Regardless of his flaws, which we have never shied from exposing and confronting, Donald Trump was not then and is not now part of the robber baron class. He is most definitely not accepted in their ranks! If there is any explanation why most of his supporters still back him, despite what we see as serious characterological flaws, it is an instinctive realization that a Trump win is a robber baron loss. Merely giving these louts a loss is enough for some people.

What is better, a rude and crass, arrogant egomaniac who makes poor personnel choices but who seems to care, or a polite puppet of the robber baron class?

Thus we have the only “general” who is willing to fight hard and take risks in the person of a loudmouth bore with no manners and a massive ego versus every other choice, mere politicians who have lost their fighting spirit and who grovel before the robber barons.

The terrible state of America and a measure of how far we are from our true manifest destiny, which we are moving away from more every day, is this stunning reality. That we can only field one general of such distemper who is even willing to try to fight is an indictment against us.

Back him we must, so it goes, and credit to him for trying, but we need more than this!

The solution cannot be conveyed in a single article. It begins, however, as and when more and more Americans of every national people group, race, class, and within every community, rich and poor alike, begin to understand and adopt both our manifest destiny and the philosophy of our empire of freedom as their litmus test for every policy and leader.

In 1982 I began to experience a series or experiences which spanned decades, but which in 1982 compelled me to write about a “secret history” of the rise of a new civilization by 2147 AD. In this history I envisioned a reality that more closely resembles today than the reality of this hour resembles the reality in 1982.

The sad and tragic aspect of these experiences, call them what you like, was that it showed an America that had for the most part lost its birthright and surrendered its manifest destiny once and for all. The new civilization and an empire of freedom did happen, but only part of our country partook in this or played a role. In other words, God’s intention for a new civilization to arise based in these core ideals, was not prevented, it’s just that our country mostly missed being the prime mover in that fulfillment.

Basically, the gist of this overall vision, derived from both these experiences and decades of study and personal experiences, is that the new civilization and an empire of freedom of some sort do not depend on whether America fulfills its manifest destiny. God’s plans are not limited by man’s choices.

The window of time in which America can return to her path of destiny and embrace her spiritual constitution for an empire of freedom, wherein freedom is a balance of virtue, liberty, and independence, is closing. It may close within a few decades or even a few years, depending on the choices our people make and the kinds of leaders and policies they vote for.

But the new civilization and some version of an empire of freedom will indeed occur, even if outside these shores, and a new spiritual nation will emerge whose heart and soul are explicitly inspired by this vision and whose very makeup is diverse people drawn from every land and nationality around the world.

Our intention and desire is to save America from losing its birthright as the harbinger of a new civilization and as the core of a globally-distributed distributed empire of freedom. Whether or not this exact term is used, America will become, we hope, a decentralized Upadarian Commonwealth of hundreds of diverse sovereign republics within member states and diverse national peoples within domestic nations organized like tribes.

From our spiritual foundations and present-day capabilities to emerging trends in decentralized and empowering technologies, the America of the future can become far more righteousness, just, fair, free, and glorious than anything we have ever achieved. America can become a Upadarian Commonwealth as a decentralized empire of freedom and as the cradle of a new civilization.

The first step begins within you. When you understand and embrace our spiritual constitution and when you embrace and adopt our true manifest destiny, something will begin to change. When more people do this and as they connect and collaborate in alternative arrangements outside the control of this top-down, centralized empire of authoritarianism and its robber baron ruling class, then the momentum will turn around over time.

It is not a sprint. It is a series of marathons, some consecutive and some simultaneous, that will get us out of the danger zone and move us toward our destiny. It begins within you and us and creates new connections and associations which result in alternative structures and institutions outside the purview of the robber baron class.

The choice for us is to embrace and pursue America’s true manifest destiny within our hearts, lives, relationships, and associations or to watch the dream die and watch our country become an authoritarian hellscape ruled by and for a ruthless robber baron ruling class. If we choose wrong, you can be sure God’s plans for a new civilization and an empire of freedom will not change and we, as a country, will simply be left behind.

Is Biden Really 56% Popular And How Should We Respond To Popular Authoritarianism?

Bill Collier June 25, 2021

According to a Fox News poll released on June 23, President Biden is 56% popular, owing mostly to high marks for his handling of the pandemic. Is President Biden really that popular and, if he is, how should we respond to such popular authoritarianism?

This from Fox News: “Conducted June 19-22, 2021 under the joint direction of Beacon Research (D) and Shaw & Company (R), this Fox News Poll includes interviews with 1,001 randomly chosen registered voters nationwide who spoke with live interviewers on both landlines and cellphones. The total sample has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points.”

The response from the Republicans may be to poke at the polling data or to call it a push poll, or something like that. Perhaps, given the untrustworthiness of all major press outlets, there is a bit of chicanery afoot in the polling sample and/or methodology. But, on the other hand, perhaps only a plurality of voters, that 43% who could not approve of Biden, genuinely opposed everything this man stands for.

We will do without belaboring all that we as Freedomists find at variance with basic common decency in most every politician, including this morally compromised President. Let’s just stipulate that this wanmabe tinhorn petty authoritarian really has, thanks to the massive dishonest propaganda of every major US institution and corporation, gained such popularity among our gullible fellow citizens.

Popular authoritarianism is still authoritarianism and it will cut and harm both its supporters and its opponents over time. Joe Biden represents the regress of freedom and the advancement of authoritarianism. It doesn’t mean he will become a dictator or that we are doomed. It does mean he and his circle of supporters and minions are on the authoritarianism spectrum and represent a dangerous shift away from freedom.

If we consider our rather principled opposition to his tenture of radical division and his instinctive authoritarian response to any crisis or any dissent, we wonder how any morally upright or clear thinking person could be anything but revolted by this administration. But the truth is that the grounding of principle we embrace, rooted in the core ideals of our country’s founding, is an uncommon thing.

Most people don’t care about ideology or philosophy. They don’t know the ideological and philosophical roots of America or Joe Biden and, frankly, they aren’t much interested. This isn’t because they are bad or dumb. There are two things holding them back from seeing how malignant the Biden Prwsidency is: their lack of educational foundations thanks to public schools and colleges/universities that push propaganda over truth and the reality of their busy lives.

The traditional approach in politics is to appeal to raw emotion and self-interest, not to reason and much less to morality. This is almost a necessity to get elected, even if your agenda and ideological foundations are more in keeping with an objectively more pro-freedom and prosperity worldview. Extolling the merits of your ideology just puts voters to sleep, they don’t care!

For those who are principled, it is actually hard to see, or accept, that most of their fellow voters rarely use principles to guide their judgment or approval of leadership. Most will tend to combine a mixture of their experience and the interpretation thereof by major culture-bearing institutions as their only guide. It is subjective and shifting, to be sure, and is hard to keep up with in attempting to appeal to them.

One can understand this and use this understanding to win votes through clever marketing even as one laments the stunning lack of principle among most voters. The fact maybe it’s true the likes of a lying, thieving weasel like Biden could win such popularity, or the fact the outlandish and often uncouth Donald Trump is the only viable alternative seen by so many, proves that principles don’t really matter to voters.

Of the 43% who do not approved of Biden as President, how many do so for genuine principle? How many understand the roots of the ideological bent of the people Biden relies on for support or the great and noble principles of freedom which demand we oppose this administration?

Moreover, is a campaign to revive an understanding of the great principles of our country in the understanding and affection of most voters anything but a fool’s errand? Must we limit ourselves to emotional and parochial appeals, even if we deeply oppose Biden et al on principled grounds? While our answer is, “no, we must not abandon principle”, we must be honest and admit that principle today doesn’t carry much weight with voters.

President Biden is a man who defies and is ignorant of the great ideals of America, namely a balanced and Judeo-Christian interpretation of Unity in diversity, Popular sovereignty, Democratic equality, and Rule of law and respect for the original spirit and intent of the Bill of Rights. His brash dismissal of others and his willingness to lie about and demoize fellow Americans is reprehensible to principled people, but irrelevant to most voters.

The truth may be that 56% of voters actually approve of this man! If ever one wished to cast aspersions upon the concept of representative republicanism or “democracy” for that matter, the fact such a man of almost zero moral or principled foundation can gain such popularity justified such skepticism.

Our founders often said things like that a republican form of government is not good for a population without morals and principles. We can see that they were right. But we can’t change the reality we have inherited from the last few generations, who gave us a “democracy”, in defiance of our Founders’ intent, that is rather shallow because its voters have been raised to be emotional and parochial in their thinking.

Our response to this crisis of principle is threefold:

1. We will use appeals to emotion and parochial interest to win elections and promote laws and policies in defiance of anti-freedom policies and unscrupulous leaders like this President.

2. We will seek to enliven a deeper understanding of and affection for the spiritual constitution and true manifest destiny of America as an empire of liberty for a free and pluralistic society of equals.

3. We will work to build relationships and structures at the individual and local to national scale that provide gaps for freedom regardless of the whims of voters or the authoritarianism of politicians and corporations.

We cannot trust these polls, but neither can we dismiss their veracity or that perhaps it is true that 56% of our fellow voters really don’t have a problem with such a lunatic freedom taker being in the White House. Our work to push back the boundaries of this authoritarianism and its intrusion into our lives must gain new urgency.

Joe Biden Versus The Bogeyman, The Nuclear War That Wasn’t

Bill Collier June 24, 2021

Is there a monster under Joe Biden’s bed threatening to water the tree of liberty with a human sacrifice or something? Will Biden’s threat to nuke said bogeyman materialize or is this a nuclear war that wasn’t and never would have been?

More concerning, does Joe Biden, our loudmouth President, really want a police state run by a one-party dictatorship or something like that? Is his recent over-the-top speech on “gun violence” and a bogeyman threatening to overthrow the government anything more than a reprehensible but meaningless sop, mere words, aimed at appeasing a woke communist base?

Let’s be clear, the bogeyman crouching under Joe Biden’s bed really has him scared or angry and he is determined to save us all from this beast! The solution is to upend the Bill of Rights while claiming to enforce the Constitution. And Joe is ready to literally “go nuclear.”

What has really happened?

Crying “F the Police” and demanding that the police be defunded or disbanded, Democrats in their cities of dystopian wokeness have created a climate that foments massive crime and violence. Democrats, not anyone else, created the surge in crime by refusing to persecute violent criminals.

As the results of this woke retreat from law and order are now playing out on the streets, not in the rest of the country but only in their teeming citdadels which they rule as one-party tin-horn dictatorships, real people are being robbed, beaten, and murdered.

Now comes one President Joe Biden threatening to use nuclear weapons and F-15’s against Americans who look askance at his (alleged) massive power grab. He threatens to eliminate the right to self-preservation even while claiming he isn’t violating the Constitution but “enforcing it.” Such outlandish, extreme language is best left to angry Marxist bloggers whose grasp on reality is tenuous, not the President of the United States. The fact he isn’t serious doesn’t matter, the fact he is unhinged does matter!

Biden says that the solution to the surge in crime in Democrat-run hell-holes like New York City, Portland, Seattle, and Baltimore, is to rein in the right to self-preservation for the rest of America even as it has been undermined in these urban satrapies! Disarming someone in a city or county not run as a leftwing authoritarian cesspool won’t stop the surge in crime, it will just make America less free.

The solution to the surge in crime is to prosecute the crimianls and purge these cities of their idiotic woke totalitarians whose incompetence is legendary. Criminals and the politicians who enable them should face real accountability.

But President Biden is speaking as if he is ONLY President to the woke totalitarians, not to the rest of America. His only concern and loyalty, based on this weird speech, is to his political party, not the US Constitution or any citizen who isn’t a member of his totalitarian party’s coalition of special interests.

President Biden isn’t a President who adheres to the oath of office or one who evenly serves all Americans. He threatens Americans with nuclear weapons and F-15’s for invoking the language of our founders in reference to would-be dictatorships. If he has no designs “evincing” tyranny, why should he worry about this?

Biden said that those who speak against the government and say the tree of liberty must be watered with blood, over the issue of the second amendment, would not stand a chance against nuclear weapons or F-15’s. Again, does he wish to create a dictatorship? If someone says “all bank robbers deserve jail time” and you aren’t a bank robber, why would this offend you? Why is Joe so offended at people rhetorically popping off about dictatorships?

Never mind that his feigned outrage is directed at a fake threat that doesn’t exist. Whoever these monsters are that he thinks are ready to overthrow the government but for its nuclear weapons and F-15’s, they really only exist in his feverish, warped imagination. Very often, as in virtually 100% of the time, when anyone quotes that famous line about the blood of tyrants and the tree of liberty, it is literally nothing more than a rhetorical flourish.

To pretend otherwise and use that to insult and threaten people is simply inexcusable.

This kind of irresponsible and violent rhetoric is far, far worse than anything Trump actually said or than anything the DNC Press accused him of saying. This is next level extremism of the sort that provokes violence and hatred.

The greatest threat to domestic peace, it seems, is Biden who has no problem invoking massive death and destruction as a threat against dissent from his woke totalitarian power grab. He is encouraging an unhinged lunatic fringe who think they have a duty and a right to use force to implement their woke communist revolution. Thankfully, these people are as feckless, toothless, and incompetent as Biden.

Fortunately, and to bring some balance, this isn’t much more than smoke and mirrors, a sop to his woke totalitarian base, the woke communist vanguard. His chest-besating is morally reprehensible and extremely divisive, but his actions are pathetic and meaningless. The outrage here is the words invoked by a President sounding like a depraved, delusional, lunatic who imagines some conspiracy by a certain group of Americans to launch a white supremacist revolution or something equally unreal.

Scapegoating millions of Americans whose only offense is dissenting from his woke communist base and their constant angry verbal assaults on the Bill of Rights is something no President should ever do. It is immoral and delusional and renders him unfit for office.

Joe Biden is a fraud. He is a fraud to his woke communist base, whose insane demands and shrill calls for more power he likely has no intention to heed and to average Americans who bristle at his rhetoric and take his meaningless ranting as serious intention.

Joe Biden isn’t coming for your guns, because he can’t and nobody knows if he really wants to or is just playing to his woke communist base to keep them in the coalition that got him into power. But just because he is most likely just spouting off to deflect from the real crisis caused by his own Party and its woke totalitarian policies in major cities, doesn’t give him a pass for having invoked such radical and anti-American rhetoric.