Yes, I haven’t mentioned Antifa, or other Hessian-type mercenaries, but I believe nationally they are merely part of Media “Hallucinations”….good copy. (Also relatively easy to shut down recruitment locally/regionally, is Dark Alley tactics employed.)

I’m guessing the Left has planned to make it’s “conquest of paradise” as bloodless as possible, in part because that’s how they’d like it to have it written up in history books and also in part, outside of video games, that’s all they know about how it would feel in real time. While professors at Dennison may think the Che or Mao look is cool, those sorts are used today as Lenin and his Bolshies used their own corps of useful idiots from the academies. That was never Marx’s ideal, nor is it the ideal of the top floor of strategic planning today.

Having spent a decade among that sort of front-office, corporate thinking, watching it trend in the ’80s, and having enough historical background about the pre-Organization Man history in America, I decided to go off and do my own field work in the old Soviet Bloc. That said, this is my assessment of how corporate “new world order” thinkers see themselves. Having no idea what races in the hearts of ordinary people, or that it was these sorts that Jesus preached to, exclusively, today they see themselves winning by strategically bottling their enemy up in court and bedazzling them with media sleight-of-hand.

Now the “Legal phase” of this insurrection against the Constitution…and that’s precisely what it is, a war against the ideals underlying the Constitution which have haunted the world’s management culture since 1776, when all the kings of Europe knew exactly what Thomas Jefferson meant when he wrote that Declaration…will be to bottle the People up in court and to paperwork (vt) the People into submission throught sheer frustration.

Going back to 1776, this belief of the Left has always been predicated on the notion that 90% of the people of the American colonies could never actually comprehend Jefferson’s words, much less personally accept them as an article of faith. Or, that they even “demanded them”, as Thomas Paine’s “Common Sense” clearly caused…by simply laying out, in an easy-to-read, easy-to-understand pamphlet, and known to virtually every American household, was simply beyond the Royal’s understanding then, or the Left’s understanding now. Like Caiaphas’ snitches in 33 AD, George III’s snitches were clueless as to what was going on until, Boom!, Lexington and Concord…and the Freedom train done left the station!, not unlike the 120 the day after Pentecost.

(This last part is what upper management then, as well as now, including the latest iteration of many so-called “conservatives”, have been psychologically unable to accept, or, in more recent generations were never taught in public schools and universities.) The war on common sense vs academic vanity began to succeed with the coming of age of the Millennial Generation, but was visible even in my own. How next generations will punish this, I won’t live long enough to enjoy, but it will occur. Natural law.)

They think they can threaten to sue you into fear and shutting up.

Here I only want to line out how I see the Left’s battle strategy might go forward. And why.

And, as with almost everything I write, it comes with a bit of historical and cultural background, framed in Natural Law which, I remind you, is a concept totally rejected by the Left and totally lost to the “smarter-than-thou’s.

First the Press.

I use “Press”, not “media” simply because it has hint of permanence. “Press” is mentioned in the Constitution in a positive way, yet throughout its history in England and America, which, for the most part are the only two places a “free press” was ever allowed to exist, it has largely been largely mocked and derided because of its scandalous and malignant, gossip-mongering behavior. In short, being declared free to lie, it did it in wholesale bunches. And in 1964, our Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, with New York Times v Sullivan, ruled that a higher standard for “defamation” existed for “notable personages” and public employees. Read the Sullivan summary here and decide for yourself whether a) times have changed (no snark intended) or b) the Court was overly broad in 1964, and if so, why?

In essence the Court stated that if you are a public official or a noteworthy person, such as Dan Rather, you must prove actual malice to get a judgment against them for defaming you. In essence the Court stated that a higher standard of “intentional” malice had to be proved, which, back in that era, the only proof of malice could only come from written memos or sworn testimony of third parties who saw or heard it, and had also not signed non-disclosure agreements (NDA’s). Today, 60 years later, when almost all mail is electronic, and erasable, and eye-witness testimony secured by those NDA’s, it’s almost impossible to get testimony into evidence.

And very, very expensive; witness the corporate-legal protections afforded European multi-nationals in hiding asbestos, black-lung and silicosis data, back in the ’60s, until the cost of damages could be shifted from the company to the taxpayers. Because Europe and England were ahead of the US in being part of multi-national corporations, big-idea men like Sam Walton or Walt Disney were never allowed to get out of the blocks with any corporate endeavor in Europe. Freddy Laker was one of their few exceptions, 1966-1982, and definitely a disrupter of the European state-owned airlines, and eventually crushed into bankruptcy. You could say the whole basis for the American economy was shifted in the 1980s to the corporate-legal handshake and men which gave us men like Skillings and Fastow, who buried Enron; remora fish who were good at numbers, scheming and networking, but knew nothing about building anything from scratch. Nor the extra “gift” of being able to walk around the factory or store floor, and know their employees by name. (Today workers are just numbers and the reason I left Big Textiles in 1989. But our company had been built by WWII veterans, many from farms, so silicosis, for instance, never had a chance. In the 80s they were purchased by “that newer generation” who saw labor markets like China to be a great opportunity. And while that old WWII generation could have bought the company themselves, they chose to retire.)

So today with a press that in 1960 was already cynical about the truth, you can imagine how well modern journalists are prepped (I’ll bet they even have seminars) on the range of new freedoms Sullivan has given them.)

There is a lot of speculation and angst that maybe the Sullivan case, like Roe, should be revisited. And Sara Palin having lost a similar defamation case against NYT at the trial level, may well provide the platform.

I can only add to the petitioners’ briefs that there are all sorts of natural reasons why modern media (the Press) would grab at this open door and grab all the mileage they can, for the dark side of Natural Law behavior, the self-destructive side, will always drive, drive, drive, like remora fish clinging to sharks, and will even die with the shark if Nature sees fit to dispose of that shark (i.e., blind to the natural big picture). Parasites, the modern Press does seem willing to die with its multinational, corporate host that it has selfishly assisted in making more vulnerable.

Nick Sandman and Kyle Rittenhouse both proved that the Press still can’t lie about the little guys, and I’m sure seminars are proceeding, apace. We’ll see how abuses of the language apply to J6 detainees in due course, but so far the Press has chosen to deal with them largely as a group, instead of individually, but I believe a few cause of actions will arise, so I hope Sara will proceed  with her case against New York Times.

About the natural instincts of the Press, I give you Chesterton.

I quote GK Chesterton here for he is one of the very few members of the Press who was also a self-admitted Christian and notable moralist. In short, he could connect more dots than anyone else in the English press, and could match, even exceed, many of the notables in the British world of philosophy and politics, including its Left, e.g. the Fabian socialist George Bernard Shaw.

       …If you never believe the Press and if you always believe private gossip (within reason) you will probably be right; (1908)

Journalism is popular, but it is popular mainly as Fiction.

It is impossible to exaggerate the evil that can be done by a corrupt and unscrupulous Press…

The whole modern Press has a perpetual and consuming terror of plain morals.

Also, Barbara Tuchman, the historian and author of The Guns of August, (1962) about the opening month of World War I, and which I have referred to in other contexts (May, 2022) she dedicated part of a chapter to the ability of the English press (who did not especially distinguish itself that first month of the war, and who guessed wrongly that the war would be over in 60-90 days).

In it she wrote that the English press told the people that the British Expeditionary Force (BEF) sent to France was carrying the brunt of the German invasion, at no time did it engage more than 3 German corps, out of 30. This “unfact” was repeated with every mention of an English encounter. And the Press also hinted that they were losing.

In this mood, English readers, seeking good news I suppose, seized upon a total press lie which turned into a “national hallucination”. It began with a 17-hour delay of the Liverpool-to-London railway service late in August, and was inspired by the rumor that the train delay had been due to the transport of Russian troops (England and France’s allies in this particular war), having been landed in Scotland, en route to the south to the English Channel to be ferried into France to support the Allies. Their ship allegedly trekked from Archangel across the Arctic Sea to Norway, thence to Aberdeen, and thence by special troop trains to Channel ports.

Of course, none of this ever happened, but reports of stamped snow kicked off Russian boots at rail stations and “strange uniforms”. An Oxford professor said he had a colleague who’d been asked to go and help with interpreting. A Scottish army officer in Edinburgh described them as 19th Century Cossacks on horseback. Mind you, all this was by word-of-mouth, rumor, since the law prohibited Press reports of troop movements in England. Only in America were these reports published by our Press…only how did news work its way across the Atlantic by telegraph?

Their source of the reports? Who else?

William Randolph Hearst meet The Guardian.

This is what they do, folks. It is who they are. All you can do, if the Law will allow, is sue them into oblivion, so that once again, the Central Iowa Thunderstorm is your best source of news…and great deals at Toyota or Food Lion.

And for the national rags, not just CNN, but the network giants, and simply don’t click on those stories offered by their internet hustlers.

If you want news, find a honest source. If you want a scolding-board, go to Twitter, only your days of enjoying feeling sorry for yourselves are drawing to a close. Twitter will change.

Time to roll up your sleeves.




Previous articleMillennials Who can Save America
Next articleSurveilling Citizens is Legal if You’re Only a Citizen


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here