Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg testifying before Congress in 2018. The Democrats—the Deep State's "designated party"— led the charge. The politicians were after more robust censorship, even if they took pains not to say it so plainly.

---

On April 9th, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan sent a Facebook Files” series, revealing documents showing Meta executives worrying about “continued pressure… including from the White House” to remove content.

Zuckerberg yesterday sent a letter that in a country with a functioning news media would have major ramifications. Not in direct response to Jordan’s April query, it appears to have been sent at Zuckerberg’s own volition, and is filled with passages deeply embarrassing to authorities. The first is about pressure to “censor” — specifically “censor,” not “moderate” or “exercise oversight”:

In 2021, senior officials from the Biden administration, including the White House, repeatedly pressured our teams for months to censor certain COVID-19 content, including humor and satire, and expressed a bit of frustration with our teams when we didn’t agree… I believe the government was wrong, and I regret that we were not more outspoken about it…

Another was about Meta’s blocking of Miranda Devine’s 2020 New York Post story about Hunter Biden after being warned by the FBI:

The FBI warned us about a potential Russian disinformation operation about the Biden family and Burisma in the lead up to the 2020 election. That fall, when we saw a New York Post story reporting on corruption allegations involving then Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden’s family, we sent that story to fact-checkers for review and temporarily demoted it while waiting for a reply. It’s since been made clear that the reporting was not Russian disinformation, and in retrospect, we should not have demoted the story.

Zuckerberg’s letter is a stiff poke in the eye to authorities, who brought this on themselves.

Somehow, in 2020, a very unpopular Democratic party candidate who could not pass his own party's primary elections without industrial-scale rigging, ended up as the nation's president. Supposedly, he won the largest number of popular votes ever obtained by any candidate.

Not everyone is convinced that this is what actually happened. The party itself twice cheated their most popular candidate in the primaries: the pied piper of the American working class, turncoat Bernie Sanders. This year, the party boldly skipped the primaries altogether, anointing the staggeringly inept and even more unpopular Kamala Harris as the party's candidate. So far, all this has elicited waves of shrugs and feeble protests from much of the voting public.

 

The obvious question is, why. Why would they choose such a dismal candidate as Harris, unless they were planning to cheat again and steal the 2024 elections? Evidence that they are already doing so is already piling up. Fake polls show Kamala is as popular as Trump, and a few bizarre videos and photos of her political rallies emerged over the recent days. They seem a tad inauthentic:

Kamala Harris rally: her voters are all very special people.

The most extensive voter fraud organization in history

Time magazine described the “vast, cross-partisan campaign to protect the election” consisting of “shadow campaigners,” whose “work touched every aspect of the election.” For example, the article explains that, “They got states to change voting systems and laws and helped secure hundreds of millions in public and private funding. They fended off voter-suppression lawsuits, recruited armies of poll workers and got millions of people to vote by mail for the first time. They successfully pressured social media companies to take a harder line against disinformation and used data-driven strategies to fight viral smears.”

Time magazine revealed all this, and much more, but did so on the pretense that this vast conspiracy was organized not to steal the elections for Joe Biden, but to protect American democracy. For his part, Joe Biden was a bit more candid. He said this: “we have put together, I think, the most extensive and inclusive voter fraud organization in the history of American politics.”

Now, why would Joe say that? Was it just a case of Joe Biden misspeaking again (yawn!) or was it deliberate, in-your-face disclosure by the secret ruling establishment to the US voters: we did it, we told you that we did it, and you all acquiesced, so everything that follows is on you.

The British new normal for the U.S.?

The fact that the American political system seems to be evolving toward the model of its former colonizer, Great Britain is very significant. It suggests that like Britain, the U.S. is being ruled by a hidden oligarchy. Behind the establishment's self-serving facade, Britain is not a democracy at all, and that fact is obvious once you scratch below the surface. In his 1966 book, "Tragedy and Hope," professor Carrol Quigley had much to say about the British political system.

Joe Biden: "We have put together I think the most extensive and inclusive voter fraud organization in the history of American politics.”

Quigley wasn’t just any old college professor: he was a trusted insider in the Western political establishment and a mentor to the future U.S. President Bill Clinton. As a privileged member of the Council on Foreign Relations, he was allowed to peruse their archives (which are strictly closed to the public and to most CFR members) for two years which enabled him to write one of the most eye-opening accounts of our modern history (1890-1965). In fact, when the establishment finally understood the revealing nature of “Tragedy and Hope,” the book was abruptly withdrawn from sales and all remaining copies were destroyed, together with the printing-plates.

Here's what Dr. Quigley had to say about the British political system: 

• “…the greatest difference between Britain and the US rests in the fact that the former has no constitution. This is not generally recognized (p. 461)” 

• “… many of the relationships which are covered by conventions are based on precedents that are secret (such as relationships between monarchy and Cabinet, between Cabinet and political parties, between Cabinet and civil service, and all the relationships within the Cabinet) and in many cases, the secrecy of these precedents is protected by law under the Official Secrets Act… (462)” 

• “It is seriously stated in many books that the Cabinet is responsible to the House of Commons, and controlled by it. In truth, the Cabinet is not controlled by the Commons but the reverse." (463) 

• [This should sound familiar:] The fact that there are no primary elections in Britain and that party candidates are named by the inner clique of the party is of tremendous importance and is the key to the control which the inner clique exercises over the House of Commons, yet it is rarely mentioned in books on the English political system." (463)

• “There is also no separation of powers. The Cabinet is the government and ‘is expected to govern not only within the law, but, if necessary, without law or even against the law’ There is no limit on retroactive legislation, and no Cabinet or Parliament can bind its successors. The Cabinet can enter into war without Parliament’s permission or approval. It can expend money without Parliament’s approval or knowledge… It can authorize violations of the law, as was done in regard to payments of the Bank of England in 1847, in 1857, or in 1931. It can make treaties or other binding international agreements without the consent or knowledge of Parliament…" (469) 

• "The idea, widely held in the US, that the Commons is a legislative body and the Cabinet is an executive body is not true. Legislation originates in the meetings of the inner clique of the party, acting as a first chamber. If accepted by the Cabinet it passes the Commons almost automatically. The Commons, rather than a legislative body, is the public forum in which the party announces the decisions it has made in secret party and Cabinet meetings and allows the opposition to criticize in order to test public reactions. Thus all bills come from the Cabinet, and rejection in Commons is almost unthinkable…" (469)

• “It is not generally recognized that there have been many restrictions on democracy in Britain… effectively curtailing the exercises of democracy in the political sphere. (470)” [things got a lot worse since 1966]

• “Since the two chief parties in England do not represent the ordinary Englishman, but instead represent the entrenched economic interests directly, there is relatively little ‘lobbying,’ or attempting to influence legislators by political or economic pressure. (477)” 

This is only a small sampling of verifiable facts. These facts clash with the subtle propaganda that’s been diffused through our societies and which has by now become part of Western civilization’s cultural folklore. Britain, in spite of its imperialistic, colonial past somehow came to be regarded as the cradle of modern democracy and human rights in the West. Unfortunately, once such beliefs are embraced, they are extremely difficult to dislodge from the public mind, and this is where many of our difficulties take root.

Leveraging the groupthink

If such a large proportion of people are willing to believe absurdities, why should the DNC stop cheating? Why not steal elections again and then brazenly state that they were won fairly and browbeat anyone who questions that as Vladimir Putin’s useful idiot? They’ve done it before, they reaped their rewards and they got away with it. Does anybody really believe that they’ll suddenly start abiding by the law and the Constitution, even to their own detriment?

Of course they won’t. They'll move the new normal to increasingly resemble the British fake democracy. Fortunately, today the facade around the British political system is crumbling, revealing Britain for what it is: a neofeudal oligarchy, still deeply attached to its colonial past, still keen on “ruling the waves,” and still contemptuous of its subjects. It is not the model to emulate, but to transcend and leave behind where it belongs: in the dustbin of history. Let us hope that the American people will be able to reclaim their democracy and their nation.

NBC News on August 21st headlined “Ukraine launches massive drone attack on Moscow” and interviewed an anonymous U.S. veteran and now volunteer fighter against Russia who had participated in Ukraine’s attack against Kursk in Russia, and he said, “We didn’t start this. We are simply helping freedom-loving people against a totalitarian regime.”

Does he get his ideas from the battlefields in Ukraine and in Russia, or from somewhere else — maybe from the U.S. Government and its mainstream ‘news’-media?

On August 13th, the New York Times headlined an op-ed, “The West Clearly Doesn’t Want to Defeat Putin”, which argued that “Russia grows ever bolder, like a bully who realizes the teacher isn’t coming,” and, “By first casting its lot with Ukraine and then failing to follow through, America has lost its place as the bulwark of the West that can guarantee protection and peace to its allies.” It closed: “A small war far away from America’s borders has reshaped our world — and made America’s place in it smaller.”

Regardless of the viewpoints that are expressed, they might as well have been created in the PR agencies of Lockheed Martin and America’s other armaments manufacturers — whose sales are booming.

Some reports in America’s billionaires-backed media indicate that Russia will lose against Ukraine because Ukraine is a democracy whereas Russia is a dictatorship, and others report that Ukraine will lose against Russia because America is more like Neville Chamberlain than like Winston Churchill.

It is odd that throughout all of America’s billionaires-controlled media, the assumption is that America is a democracy — which is false — and that the war in Ukraine started on 24 February 2022 when Russia invaded Ukraine, instead of in February 2014 when America’s coup grabbed Ukraine and started the war in Ukraine.