It seems like it’s nearly every day that I hear someone complain about tech censorship on the major platforms. Today, it was about a video that was removed that was from a highly influential individual. It will probably be something again tomorrow, too.

In spite of all this, people are continuing to use the major tech social media platforms, even though there is no sign that the censorship is going to stop anytime soon. And because these platforms can enjoy the smug high that comes with feeding into activism while at the same time profiting heavily off these platforms, is there any reason to expect them to change?

What’s more, big tech can simply remove from web servers the competitors that threaten their establishment position, under the pretext that these alternative platforms promote extremism. It was actually just this year that the free-speech social media outlet Parler was blocked from Amazon’s web servers based on the reasoning that it was there was there that the activists behind the January 6th capitol incursion had organized (putting aside that these activists had actually organized on traditional social media sites like Facebook and Twitter).

It’s considering this that many people are blackpilled into thinking that the tech oligarchs are positioned firmly, and that there’s nothing anyone can do to stop them. But there is, and it’s been with us here for a while. And when you understand it for what it is, you’ll understand that big-tech’s biggest weapon for staying relevant is ignorance.

The weapon of the masses for fighting back against big-tech censorship is the blockchain. It’s a term you might have heard before; it’s a form of decentralized record-keeping that validates itself over a network of volunteers, to put it in just a few words. You’re probably aware of the blockchain’s application in keeping ledgers in cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin.

However, cryptocurrency is only the beginning of the blockchain’s applications. To help stir up your imagination, consider the example of peer-to-peer file sharing. This has been around for nearly as long as the internet itself. It worked with file-sharing programs, which downloaded files chunk-by-chunk until they were complete. Once the files were completed, users could then seed these files, voluntarily making them available to other users who wanted to download copies.

One problem with this old system is that there were relatively few volunteers to seed files. It was largely a labor of love, as seeding could consume system resources, and plenty of bandwidth. But what’s great about blockchains is that they incentivize participation with cryptocurrency, an act that’s called mining.

Those who mine crypto are using their computers to host data on ledgers, being one of many that contain copied data that is used to verify other data on the blockchain. The nature of crypto makes it nearly impossible to counterfeit, or to inflate anywhere outside of what’s allowed by a particular cryptocurrency’s intrinsic design.

But what if the data stored on blockchains isn’t just a ledger for digital currency, but instead entire websites? Sounds like food for thought, right? But it’s not actually a what-if scenario anymore, because it’s actually happening.

One prominent example is the open-source social media platform Minds.com. It’s there that you can do social media posts, upload photos, watch videos, write blog posts, and share memes. You know, the typical social media stuff. It’s like Facebook, except free speech. You can find me there.

Want secure email on the blockchain? You have choices. One of which is Cryptamail. Ledgermail is another option which is coming soon. Do your research to find out which one is right for you.

How about blockchain search engines? Presearch is one choice. People complain about Google’s ubiquity when it comes to online searches, but they’re not acting like alternatives actually exist which aren’t tech giants.

There are even video streaming sites that use the technology. Video hosting site Bitchute may not have become as huge as YouTube, but is a fine example of how the blockchain can create free speech video hosting. The pro-establishment elements try to ignore it, or resort to name-calling. There’s not much else they can do.

What’s that? You thought that YouTube was special because you could embed their videos? How special is YouTube, now?

You see what I mean? The main thing that the tech oligarchs count on to keep themselves afloat is ignorance. If people were aware that they could escape their censorship through websites that they can’t do anything about, such as those that I’ve linked to above, they’d experience afresh the joy of the internet reminiscent of two decades ago: completely candid and honest, belonging to the people, and not to tech giants.

And really, why should you trust tech giants with your web usage? The blockchain is intrinsically more reliable than what’s stored on their servers. But what’s more compelling is that, by using their web services, they are storing information about you.

Based on what you click on, what you search for, how long you have their websites open on tabs, even your web activities as long as their cookies are on your browser, the tech oligarchs can build an extensive psychological profile about you, which can then be sold to networks of advertisers.

And as long as you continue to use the likes of Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc., they are going to continue collecting information about you.

Just weeks ago, China started cracking down on cryptocurrency. As much as it’s understandable what their stakes would be in controlling the currency, I suspect that it’s about more than that. When you’re an immense dictatorship, the prospect of a decentralized internet that cannot be censored is terrifying. With VPNs, China cannot keep their own people from seeing the internet the way the rest of the world sees it. And with websites on the blockchain, the websites that they want censored cannot be shut down, whatever the incentives that they have to offer the tech giants.

Likewise, Russia restricts what their citizens can do with Bitcoin. If crypto were like any foreign currency, their stringency would make little sense. But if it were about the implications of the blockchain for a pseudo-democratic dictatorship, their trepidation would be understandable.

For years, we’ve watched in slow motion as the major tech institutions became propaganda outlets for the establishment. The time has come to take back what rightfully belongs to us. We have all that we need to do so. In fact, we have well more than what’s necessary. And in time, we shall have far, far more.

This is our internet. Have no reservations about taking it back.

“We cannot afford the luxury of men whose minds are so limited they cannot adapt to unexpected situations.”

Grand Admiral Thrawn

I’ll probably have to walk on eggshells with this one, for caution of offending a certain subset of society that doesn’t take it as well as they dish it out.

Football fans. Who did you think I was talking about?

While the NFL is far from the first to say it, the NFL has turned heads with the fact that they said it themselves. This is an obvious side-effect of intersectional marketing, because it’s apparently the hot thing to appeal to about 2.5% of the population while alienating everyone else.

There’s a strong chance that you’re not taking my word for it. I actually applaud that. But the NFL themselves have shared video evidence:

If you love this game, you are welcome here. Football is for all. Football is for everyone.

The NFL stands by the LGBTQ+ community today and every day.

For more information on how you can help the @TrevorProject, visit https://t.co/YtauzLAHIF pic.twitter.com/bkdWkAZ3vF

— NFL (@NFL) June 28, 2021

And don’t worry if you didn’t watch the whole thing. I didn’t.

There’s a number of points to ponder related to this matter:

• For one thing, that we’ve come from the point when who a person chooses to get intimate with was their business, to the point that it’s considered the principle feature of their identity, for them to tell everyone about, with accompanying erotica,
• That last point was such a mind-blower that I almost forgot the other points I wanted to make,
• If you laugh at Walmart shoppers wearing NFL apparel, that now makes you an intolerant bigot who is also a racist and a Nazi, and also a pedophile, because the braindead are getting to the point that they default to that last one, and
• The NFL now presumes to speak on behalf of all professional athletes regarding their sexuality. If my employer pulled the same stunt, I can imagine that the company-wide reaction wouldn’t be pleasant. Is the NFL going to screen athletes based on sexuality?

I wasn’t a huge football fan to begin with. Spending three hours on a Sunday watching a bunch of millionaires throw a ball around doesn’t appeal to me. But I know that many football fans can rightly be described as macho, and would take offense to their sexuality being interpreted as anything besides straight. This being the case, is the NFL ready to take the hit that comes with alienating such a huge part of their base? Have they already decided that they don’t need these fans, as much as they contribute to the organization’s income?

I’m surprised that football came out before baseball did.

Three people decided to get together to play a game of Monopoly. One was a computer technician, one was an oil trucker, and the other was a police chief.

As the game was in progress, the computer technician and the oil trucker noticed something unusual: the game was only a few turns in, but the police chief had just purchased Boardwalk. The wealth that he had accumulated didn’t seem to make sense.

“How much money do you have?” asked the computer technician.

“Two thousand dollars.” answered the police chief.

“I saw you stealing from the bank.” said the oil trucker. “I think we should count your money to see how much you really have.”

“Accusing me of cheating is tantamount to challenging the integrity of the game.” answered the police chief, getting defensive.

Yet, the computer technician and the oil trucker were hesitant to challenge the police chief too far. He is the police chief, after all. He could retaliate by later writing them tickets for minor traffic violations. The computer technician and the oil trucker only made just enough to get by, and could hardly afford an additional expense.

“In that case,” said the computer technician, “we’ll just count the community chest cards. You’re the only one who has been drawing any, so we’ll see whether it adds up to the amount of money you claim you have.”

“That’s not going to make a difference.” said the police chief. “At this point, I’ve pretty much won. The outcome is already determined, so you should just accept it.”

If the police chief had nothing to hide, there would be no reason for him to obstruct any effort to verify the information he presented. Both the computer technician and the oil trucker knew it. If the police chief were really playing honest, he’d take the opportunity to say, “There you go, everything is accounted for, and it all adds up. You happy?”

Do the computer technician and the oil trucker have the courage to challenge the police chief any further? That’s up to you.

“I’m looking forward to playing against the police chief again in four days.” said the oil trucker. “Maybe he won’t cheat next time.”

“Those who say the blood of lib- — ‘the blood of patriots,’ you know, and all the stuff about how we’re going to have to move against the government. Well, the tree of liberty is not watered with the blood of patriots,” “What’s happened is that there have never been — if you wanted or if you think you need to have weapons to take on the government, you need F-15s and maybe some nuclear weapons.”

Joe Biden, the 47th President of the United States, emphasis added

It’s a pity that I can only react once to the statement above. You read it. Here’s the reference. He actually just challenged the people of the country he governs with the armed forces. He’s not even trying to hide that he’s a despot.

Consider the implication that he (or his teleprompter) was willing to make. He is willing to deploy nuclear weapons. To maintain his own seat of power. Against his own people.

Any people can know that they are run by a despot when he is willing to point out that he cannot be stopped by reason of his own monopoly on violence.

If Biden was speaking on the awareness that the American people had legitimately elected him, he would not have seen the need to threaten them with the strength of the armed forces. That he is willing to flex with the U.S. nuclear arsenal towards a people who have no such weapons suggests a high degree of insecurity.

If you believe that Joe Biden has the moral capital to govern the United States, you might just be a Democrat.

Earlier this year, collective investing went for Gamestop, among other retailers, and the effect that it had on the hedge funds that bet against them was brutal.

Today it was announced that White Square Capital, the hedge fund that bet against Gamestop, is closing its doors. The fund made the claim to have recovered from the January losses, and made the decision to close its doors after a review of its business model. People are skeptical of their claim.

Power to the players, indeed.

Business Insider has reported that John McAfee, the man behind the McAfee antivirus software, has died at the age of 85 of “apparent suicide” in a jail cell. And yes, something about this sounds awfully familiar.

I’ll say right off the bat that I’m not really John McAfee’s biggest fan, and the same goes for his software. The predatory behavior employed by professional antivirus software companies rivals the producers of malware themselves. Even back in 2010, you did not want to pay for antivirus software using a credit card, or any bank information. If you did, the company would use this information to enroll you in an auto-renew that you didn’t know about because you didn’t find it buried in all the fine print that comes with the license.

What was I writing about? Oh yeah, John McAfee. Go ahead and follow the link to read the story, and consider the impression you’re intended to come away with.

Did you get that? The intended takeaway was, “Don’t trust crypto, and pay your taxes.” Nice psyop, Business Insider.

The establishment’s beef with crypto, Bitcoin in particular, is easy to recognize when you see that the establishment has no control over it. Because only a certain amount of Bitcoin is to be produced, it cannot be inflated, meaning more cannot be arbitrarily produced just to make purchases at the expense of everyone else who has the currency.

Just this week, China announced that they’d be cracking down on cryptocurrency. In the hours that followed, the value of crypto spiked downward. But immediately afterwards, crypto rebounded just as fast.

I hope the Chinese Communist Party was paying attention to the trend, because it means that crypto doesn’t need their love.

Business Insider has done a follow-up article, attributing to Q-Anon the conspiracy theories surrounding McAfee’s death. It seems like it’s still considered a conspiracy theory to point out that something seems screwy when it’s more obvious than Ikea’s indiscretion.

Right after muddying the waters themselves, Business Insider points out that the waters are muddy. There’s no accounting for good taste.

I might not agree with everything McAfee has ever done, but that’s not necessary for someone to be a great man. The world has just become less brilliant.

If you’ve been preparing for the zombie apocalypse, you’ve probably just been playing some video games. Not that there’s anything wrong with that. But considering that dogs haven’t yet spread rabies to every other mammal on the continent, it’s possible that things might not go the way the zombie apocalypse prepper might think.

In reality, in today’s connected world, the ultimate survival scenario would be one where the world suddenly becomes a lot less connected. An entire continent can go dark. Nearly all electronics and electrical systems would instantaneously cease functioning. Bronies losing access to their DeviantArt accounts would instantly despair.

And all this can happen in an instant.

There are two main ways that this could occur. One is for a long-range, manufactured EMP to be strategically detonated. Such a device could be mounted to an ICBM, then detonated hundreds of miles above a strategically-chosen point. (Detonating one on earth’s surface wouldn’t work as well, considering the curvature of the earth.) A carefully-positioned one could include all 48 states of the continental US, or all of Europe.

Like any ICBM, defense systems would likely detect them as they come, mistake them for having been nuclear-armed, and possibly result in a retaliatory strike. Which would be, of course, vintage bad news.

So, what’s the other main way an EMP can arrive at our collective doorsteps? Via the sun. The closest star to us is mostly stable, but sometimes lets out bursts of radiation in random directions. If one were to go off right now, the odds of it hitting earth in 8 minutes (the approximate time it takes for light from the sun to get here) would be low, as the likelihood that we’d be in its area of effect is low.

But it has happened, presumably throughout human history. In most instances, we would not have had the means to know it was going on. But in the days of the telegraph, there was a point in which the telegraphs were going crazy. It was an anomaly at the time, but at this point, the culprit seems to be solar activity.

If earth were to be hit with an EMP from the sun, the entire side of the earth facing the sun at the time would be hit with its effects. And there’d be pretty much no warning.

Now for the fun question. How would the event go down?

The answer depends pretty much on where you happen to be at the instant the EMP occurs. You pretty much don’t want to be in an elevator, on the operating table, or in traffic.

Suppose you were at work. Suddenly, the lights went out. For an instant, it seems like an ordinary power outage. But then, people start checking their phones to see what’s going on.

But the phones don’t work, either.

None of the electronics work. None of them. Even those with their own power supply, such as laptops and smartphones, go out. And none of them come back on. No desklamps, no florescent lights, and if your room doesn’t have a window, it just went entirely black.

A peek outside shows mayhem. Cars have collided. Traffic lights are out. Most cars are sitting in place, their operators desperately attempting to start their vehicles up again. Some motorists may have already abandoned their cars, starting out on journeys to find loved ones and perhaps get to the bottom of what’s going on.

People in major cities that survive the first few minutes will prioritize escaping from those cities, with roads and bridges being packed with pedestrians, some stampeding.

Schools will be flooded with parents, desperate to find their children safe.

Store shelves will be ransacked, stripped bare by people unable to buy anything.

Marauders will take to the streets, looking to gather up anything that could help their friends, families, and themselves survive.

Electronic money would disappear, vaporizing savings and investments. People would barter with supplies, as money becomes nearly worthless.

Chaos would reign, as what police would remain would hardly be able to maintain order, with many of them prioritizing protecting their own families.

You’ll lose your progress in Pokémon Go.

And it’s going to get a lot worse. It’s been estimated that if an EMP were to occur in the US, as many as 90% of Americans would die within one year of the initial event.

Do you have what it takes to be among the 10% that would make it?

If you have the idea of fleeing to the woods, you wouldn’t be the only one. You’d likely run into other people out there, and any interaction with them could be potentially dangerous.

The Amish would suddenly be the most enlightened people around, as people from all over would turn to them to determine how to get by.

This should be obvious, but mental health would take a massive hit. There will be plenty of people prowling about that won’t be safe to have around.

What makes the EMP the ultimate survival scenario is that it puts people against people. With law enforcement and basic amenities unavailable, cities would transform into battles royale just for the means to survive from one day to the next. No one would be safe, as communities would resort to old-fashioned lookouts to protect themselves. Those who accrued massive wealth might find themselves ordinary people in a hurry.

Those who know each other well enough to trust each other would have to work together as tight-knit communities to survive.

Friends and relatives that live as few as a dozen miles away you might never see again.

Also (and here’s food for thought), a foreign power on the other side of the world might seize the situation for their benefit, and you might not even know your own country is being invaded.

While people are certainly capable of surviving without electricity, most people alive in the connected world today don’t know how. If the lights were to go out, and not come back on, they’d be in a pretty bad spot. When the sun goes down, they might be surprised at just how dark it could get.

A lot to think about, isn’t it? The more survivalist know-how and the better prepared you are, the better off you’d be. But things would still be pretty rough. After all, your goal is to be among the few, the ten-percenters, who survive the first year after the point that things go dark.

Do you think you have what it takes?

In what may be the most famous Simpson’s Treehouse of Horror episode, the animated sitcom parodied Soylent Green.

The episode started with Bart being sent to detention. But because detention was getting to be too full, the staff decided to get creative in how they punished miscreants.

One thing led to another, and the students soon discovered that “Sloppy Jimbo” was on the cafeteria menu, while Jimbo himself was nowhere to be found. Shortly afterwards, another student was sent to detention, and the menu afterwards featured an item seemingly named for him.

What was happening was that the staff had decided to deal with detention students by adding them to the menu. Worse, they were developing a taste for them.

Soon, the few students that were left were gathered together in the same room, overseen by an overweight teacher. At this point, the students were being sent to detention over the slightest infraction, because the faculty had tasted blood, and couldn’t get enough.

By the time the few students left had realized what was going on well enough to do anything about it, there wasn’t much they could do.

Sound like anything that’s happening today?

From time to time, you hear about someone who criticizes entertainment, but with a twist: they’ll attempt to use religion in an attempt to prop up their smug sense of self-righteousness.

It’s usually something inane, like ignorantly accusing Pokémon of being satanic, or some other mainstream video game of having harmful moral side-effects.

Oftentimes, gamers will cite studies that conclusively show that such claims are bogus. This is an effective defense, but in the long run, the busybodies keep coming back, and that’s because they love picking fights.

This can leave quite a few people perplexed. Just what does a person have to do to drive these people off, and keep them away?

The problem is that people respond to them by remaining on the defensive. In order to have a lasting effect on these people, you have to go on the offensive, with a counter-argument that’s especially designed to make them sorry they messed with you.

Here is what you say: You point out that they are complaining about specks that they perceive in other people’s eyes, when there are beams in their own eyes (figuratively speaking, probably).

Point out that if their own Christianity is like what most people call Christianity, then it has the following doctrinal problems:

• They observe Christmas, Easter, and a handful of other holidays with obvious pagan origins rather than what the Bible says they should observe,
• They likely also ignore the fourth commandment, and observe Sundays instead,
• They likely believe that God is a trinity, a concept the Bible nowhere teaches,
• Their church likely demands more in tithes and offerings than they are entitled to.

There’s more, but that would usually suffice. Then you follow up with this:

That your entertainment wasn’t intended to inform a person as to what their religious, ideological, or philosophical ideals should be, so your entertainment is actually more harmless than their religion.

That one-two punch scores a knockout, in most cases. The first argument wouldn’t work so well on the few Christians that actually do keep it Biblical, but they should also be smart enough to understand that going after a person’s entertainment is actually counterproductive.

After delivering this, you’re done talking to them. They might try to bait you or argue against what you said; it’s a fight they’re after, after all. At this point, they’d be looking for any way to save face. So, don’t take the bait. By engaging them no further, you deny them that opportunity, and their main takeaway becomes what their religion gets wrong.

This works as well as it does because it forces the false Christian to confront what they’re afraid is true about their religion, and the possibility that the truth about it is no longer being obscured by the dark mists of history.

In case any of you are wondering whether I’m Christian, yes, I am. But I’m interested in seeing the Christian world return to the real thing. Also, it would be better if those who claimed to be Christian stopped bothering with pointless, counterproductive fighting over stuff that isn’t causing any harm, anyway.

Spiritual bullies are like any bully; if you’re only on the defensive, they can just keep going at it without any repercussion. To defeat them, you need to dish out a strong counterattack, preferably one that highlights their shortcomings and makes them learn some respect.

Then you leave them to contemplate what just happened.

There is an old technique used when questioning captured terrorists: While detained, they’d be exposed to news stories showing things going badly for their movement. This inspires a why-not-tell-all attitude in the terrorist that they might not have developed if not provided with this perspective.

Recently, legacy media outlets have come to the awareness that birth rates are falling to crisis levels. What’s more, the current government of China has come to this same awareness.

In light of these developments, the uber-environmentalist neo-eugenic depopulation movement has suddenly found itself under pressure, and we’re starting to see the quiet part spoken out loud.

A contributor to Vogue, Nell Frizzell, has straight-up declared her doubts as to whether her pregnancy was environmental vandalism, declaring in no uncertain terms that she viewed her first-world child in terms of the resources that he would eventually consume.

Does anyone have any doubt that this poor child will turn out normal?

Here’s a blurb from the article:

For the scientifically-engaged person, there are few questions more troubling when looking at the current climate emergency than that of having a baby. Whether your body throbs to reproduce, you passively believe that it is on the cards for you one day, or you actively seek to remain child-free, the declining health of the planet cannot help but factor in your thinking.

If by “scientifically-engaged” you mean someone who consumes data presented through the opaque lens of environmental activism, which is usually distorted or outright misleading.

If science did factor into a person’s thinking, their question is how to achieve the breakthroughs to ensure a brighter future for a child born into a world which, at the bare minimum, has the ethics to permit his birth.

And, make no mistake, if it so happens that the world is ethically-lacking, that concern takes priority over any scientific development. Every single time.

Nell is pretty far from the first person to make the claim to be scientific insofar as science can be tortured into a neo-eugenic worldview, but if I were to hear that she were the last, this would be news that I would welcome.

The food he ate, the nappies he wore, the electricity he would use; before he’d even started sitting up, my child would have already contributed far more to climate change than his counterpart in, say, Kerala or South Sudan.

But rather than make the move to South Sedan, where she and her child could consume few resources (largely because South Sudan has few resources), she prefers to remain in the developed world, where she can continue to consume as many resources for her child, and herself, as she wishes.

Apparently, Nell is okay with continuing to live in the world of Big Macs, high-speed internet, SUVs, and air conditioning, and I suspect that this has a lot to do with the fact that that very society provides her with a platform she can use to continually complain into the digital abyss on the off-chance that her inanities will be read by someone. And, to my vexation, I was among those who happened to find them.

What I’m about to share may not sound very romantic, but it’s an observation that’s easy to make. In today’s connected world, there’s a new form of “natural selection” which, rather than going specifically for the physically unfit, instead weeds out the gullible. Due to the nature of today’s world, the ones more likely to have their genes passed on to successive generations are those less likely to fall for bullshit.

Considering this, there is a certain irony in that the depopulation movement, due to its intrinsic nature, removes from the gene pool those who believe in it with sincerity.

“They will be the architects of their own destruction.” -Grand Admiral Thrawn