I try to use logic in my articles

This has led to some very disturbing conclusions.

What conclusions would Mr. Spock make about our New Normal world?

In my last article, I tried to use deductive reasoning or “logic” to explain how I knew the spike in all-cause deaths would NOT be exposed.

As I understand it, logic is simply an intellectual exercise where someone says “If A or B is true - or if one thinks these are true -  then C, D or E must also be true.”

In layman’s terms, someone can make confident predictions based on some “known knowable(s).”

I use such deductive reasoning/syllogisms all the time in my writing (or try to). This is what probably makes me a “contrarian” and has allowed me to pen some fairly-original articles.

Today’s article provides another example where deductive reasoning allows me to make another bold prediction (or reach some more “logical” conclusions).

What logical conclusions flow from our government conspiring

with social media companies to censor speech?

Recently, a flurry of stories in the alternative press has shown conclusively that the government pressured social media companies to be much more aggressive in their censorship of users’ comments that do not align with the “authorized” Covid narratives.

(See my article on Missouri et al vs. Biden).

In reading legal documents from the Missouri v Biden lawsuit, I found a few comments from people who pointed out that the big social media companies like Meta (Facebook and Instagram), Google and YouTube are still censoring un-authorized comments at the same rate they have for the past 40 months.

I know this is true because Facebook keeps suspending my account and/or censoring or shadow-banning or restricting the reach of my Facebook posts.

Anyway, it would qualify as a “known knowable” to me that companies like these have NOT curtailed their censorship programs even after plaintiffs filed this serious and potentially explosive lawsuit.

From this simple observation, several “logical” inferences occur to me. These include:

* These companies are NOT afraid of any terrible consequences happening to their companies if they don’t stop this censorship.

* Said differently, they seem to be very confident such a result will NOT happen.

* These companies must have concluded that nothing damaging to their companies is going to happen as a result of this lawsuit and investigation. 

• In other words, executives at these companies have concluded they are “safe” to continue to censor like Big Brother … “safe,” as in, they know someone important will “protect” their companies from harm as long as they keep censoring away.

• In fact, they probably realize they’ll be rewarded for “playing ball” with the legions of censors, “fact checkers” and “disinformation warriors” who are now omnipresent in myriad organizations.

Again, from these “logical” conclusions, I’ve deduced that, somehow, these executives must know that nothing significant or damaging to their companies is going to result from this lawsuit.

This conclusion/observation prompts this question: How do they know this?

Here, I circle back to the point I tried to make in my last column: These executives probably know this because they are all members of the same “club” …. and these club members happen to be the most powerful people and organizations on the planet. 

Apparently, one iron-clad rule of said club is that members protect each other. They all benefit from sticking together. 

Conversely, they all probably recognize they could be exposed and disgraced and lose their wealth, influence, benefits and power if they do NOT stick together and act together.

To use one example, my guess is that Mark Zuckerberg of Meta somehow knows nothing bad is going to happen to his company even if his army of “content moderators” and the platform’s algorithms continue to suppress my free speech (which the company continues to do).

Here, one has to state that if Missouri v Biden was successfully litigated, the conclusion would surely qualify as an epic scandal. 

It would tell the world that many agents of our own government have conspired with companies like Meta to censor free speech. 

Basically, the First Amendment to the U.S.Constitution would now be null and void.

Put it this way: If the U.S. government can compel partners in the media world to censor speech the government doesn’t like, we all now live in a dystopian, Orwellian world.

Well, that’s the “bet” that Zuckerberg, Google et al have apparently made. This is our “New Normal” world and these social media and Big Tech companies have no problem with this whatsoever. (Nor does the legacy press.)

More prosaic ‘carrots and sticks’ …

It’s also possible these companies have made a more prosaic observation. For example, they have no doubt taken note of what’s happening at their competitor, Twitter, since Elon Musk bought this social media company.

According to comments Musk made in his recent conversation with Robert Kennedy, Jr., there seems to be a conspiracy of corporate advertisers to boycott Twitter now that it’s allowing far more free speech.

One doesn’t know if any memo went out to all these companies (and their ad agencies) to punish Twitter by withholding advertising spends on this platform. Here, one guesses these executives aren’t stupid enough to put any message like this in writing. 

Still, we can observe what’s actually happened - “a known knowable” … as Musk, who would know, has told us.

All our leading institutions now work in pack fashion …

One strongly suspects that corporate executives work in “pack” fashion just like corporate journalists do. In “journalism,” all the editors and reporters intuitively know what stories they can write and, perhaps more importantly, what stories they can’t write. Or what investigations they can’t pursue.

The same approach seems to apply to what companies are allowed to receive advertising dollars and which media companies should never receive advertising dollars.

We saw the same dynamic with the “case study” of one Tucker Carlson, formerly the star talking head at Fox News.

Yes, Tucker had the No. 1-rated TV news talk show in the world. However, his time slot at Fox News probably ranked last in “advertising revenue” from Coca-Cola, GM, IBM, Pfizer, Procter & Gamble, Johnson & Johnson, J.P. Morgan Chase and any company with scores of branded products or services.

Here’s the lesson even a caveman would get: If you want to air “dissident” commentary or journalism, you are not going to receive any advertising dollars from our club members.

As you might have heard, Tucker Carlson was finally fired from Fox News. Today, I imagine the “memo” has gone out - It’s okay to once again advertise on Fox News between 8 and 9 p.m. EST.

I think this is called the “carrot-and-stick” approach to compelling compliance. (This approach seems to work in media as well as when it comes to promoting official propaganda such as “the vaccines are safe and effective.”)

Anyway, Meta and Google must have taken note of this “real-world” reality as well.

Regarding my “logical” belief that most social media companies are now completely captured (and are “all in” with Big Brother), I can make even more logical inferences.

As noted, censoring social media and Big Tech companies must not be too worried about the plaintiffs winning  Missouri vs. Biden, which suggest to me that they know the U.S. Court system is also captured and will not allow any verdict that would disgrace their companies.

Here, I would opine that some lower court might rule in favor of the plaintiffs, but when this case finally gets to the Supreme Court, the Bad Guys perhaps know they have the vote of John Roberts in the bag?

They must also know that the leaders of Congress aren’t going to hold any Watergate-type hearings and expose their complicity and convince the citizens of our nation that, say, Facebook is evil and despises the First Amendment (which would mean the company despises and rejects everything the Founders of this nation stood for).

What else do these club members “know?”

I’ll go even further. I think “club members” must know that “Joe Biden” is going to be re-elected president (or, if “Joe Biden” has to be replaced, another political clone who also hates and rejects the Constitution). 

Think about it for a second. If these companies thought that Missouri v Biden might prevail - and the public might rise up against their companies - these companies would probably be throttling back on their censorship programs right now.

In fact, they’ve shrugged off these legal proceedings and are doubling, tripling and quadrupling down on the censorship of “misinformation” and “disinformation” of all varieties (not just dissident Covid speech).

This makes me think our “rulers behind the curtain” must know that they’ve also captured and control elections … and that “their” candidates will always win (even if their candidate is obviously suffering from worsening dementia, which is perhaps one reason they love this particular politician so much). 

In other words, I think club members somehow know that Donald Trump, Robert Kennedy, Jr. or Ron DeSantis are not going to become the next president of the United States.

Any of these candidates, if elected, might push for hearings and prosecutions that could expose these companies for what they really are.

It seems pretty clear to me that this possibility doesn’t concern these people. Perhaps because they know this is NOT going to happen?

In my last article, I tried to explain why the “club members” aren’t worried about any of the Covid truths being exposed to the citizens of the world. 

They know they hold all the key cards and that their not-so-little fraternity isn’t going to allow this to  happen.

This is probably the same reason Facebook and Google aren’t worried about being humiliated and possibly facing financial ruin from their roles in attacking the Bill of Rights.

Somehow they know this is not going to happen.

Again, the most important known-knowable seems to be the knowledge that club members control all the levers of power … And so they act accordingly.

I know the above might sounds like wild conspiracy stuff to many people, but Mr. Spock would probably reach the same “logical” and deeply-disturbing conclusions I’ve reached.

I’m thinking about putting aside this “logic tool” in future articles. It’s starting to interfere with my sleep.