The Death Of A Nation.

The end of the Constitution

The same entity that gave us absolute immunity, qualified immunity, and Frazier v. Cupp, which authorizes law enforcement to lie to the populace, just gave us the death knell of the Constitution for the United States of America.

Every single standard has just been readjusted to include an inferred threat to national security, even this substack, and others like it, and if someone is persuasive enough, with or without solid evidence, the first amendment is gone.

In this case, enough Republicans and enough Democrats agreed, that TikTok was a national security threat. So, they passed a law banning it, and the Supreme Court took this up and upheld the law that bans tiktok, saying that

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24-656_ca7d.pdf

The real threat, however, isn’t “national security”. It’s who controls the propaganda.

The United States, in 2012, passed the Smith Mundt Modernization Act of 2012. Here’s what Grok AI says about this act:

”The law that allowed for the U.S. government to present materials previously intended for foreign audiences to its own citizens is the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012. This act was part of the 2013 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) and amended the U.S. Information and Educational Exchange Act of 1948, commonly known as the Smith-Mundt Act. The amendment effectively lifted the ban on the domestic dissemination of materials produced by the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) and the State Department for foreign audiences, allowing these materials to be made available in the U.S. upon request. However, this does not mean the government can produce or use propaganda specifically targeted at U.S. citizens to influence domestic public opinion; the law primarily aimed to increase transparency by allowing Americans access to government-funded international broadcasting content.”

Beginning at the “However” after the bold portion above, you can disregard that. The US government surely does.

See, “upon request” is a fluid, and latently ambiguous construct. They can ask at any time, and if you’ve watched the news, you know they choreograph the fuck out of the public narrative for their own purposes.

Here is just one example of this. Notice the pleas for the good of the country to “fact check” when they are all saying the same thing. Notice also the attack on social media, which the legacy/propaganda media cannot control.

It’s outrageous. It’s predictable, and it’s known that the mainscream media is one big propaganda machine. When COVID-19 came out, there was so much fearmongering that has since been proven categorically false. There WILL be another pandemic, bet on it, and with Tiktok or media like it, including Substack, Rumble, and similar outlets, this propaganda has no balance, or counter-voice. That is not only dangerous, it’s fascism.

But the US has long given notice that it supports fascism, we just haven’t taken it seriously. The symbol for fascism is a fasces, an ax bound in a bundle of rods, and it means, well, let’s see what Grok AI says it is:

FROM GROK AI:

”The original meaning of fascism comes from the Italian term "fascismo," derived from "fascio," meaning "bundle" or "union," which refers to a political movement or group. The term was first used in Italy in the early 20th century to describe the ideology and political system established by Benito Mussolini and his followers.

In its original context, fascism can be characterized by several core principles:

1. Totalitarian Government: Fascism advocates for a centralized, authoritarian government where the state has total control over all aspects of national life, suppressing opposition and often using violence or coercion.

2. Nationalism: It emphasizes extreme nationalism, often promoting the idea of national rebirth, purity, and the uniqueness or superiority of one's nation or race.

3. Militarism: There's a strong emphasis on military values, often glorifying war and military might as means to achieve national unity and strength.

4. Anti-Communism: Fascism was initially defined in opposition to socialism and communism, advocating for the suppression of left-wing political movements while sometimes adopting some of their methods of control.

5. Corporatism: It promotes the organization of society into corporate groups based on common interests, like industry or agriculture, where these groups work with or under the state for the perceived benefit of the nation.

6. Leader Worship: There's often an emphasis on a charismatic leader who embodies the spirit of the nation, like Mussolini in Italy or Hitler in Nazi Germany, which later adopted many fascist principles.

7. Suppression of Individualism: Fascism often seeks to subordinate individual rights to the collective will of the state or nation, viewing personal freedoms as secondary to national goals.

Mussolini's definition of fascism was summarized in his 1932 "Doctrine of Fascism" where he described it as "everything in the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state."

**********
Here is America’s symbolism of fascism:

https://blog.tampaprep.org/hubfs/Being%20Earnest%20Blog/Images/Menu%20Images/House%20of%20Reps.png#keepProtocol (FAIR USE)

See the three different fasces? Two on the wall, and one as the Sergeant at Arms Mace. (Complete with eagle wing axe heads…)

They want to control the narrative. I submit that the US government clearly and undeniably subscribe to all seven of the characteristics of fascism listed above, in one guise or another.

And it disturbs them that you have a right to speak out against the government.

Here’s John Kerry, Former Senator and Secretary of State, saying the quiet part out loud:

And here’s Senator Mark Warner, another full-blown fascist, saying the true concern about TikTok:

It’s not about national security, unless national security is controlling the way you think, speak, and freedom to engage in both freely. They want your mindless obedience, and nothing less will make them happy. Mark Warner as much as admits that the propaganda that is allowed by TikTok not towing the line of the US issued propaganda is the real problem.

I refuse to respect, honor, obey, or league myself with this bullshit. If my words are sedition, then this sedition is willingly embraced without shame. Further, I would assert that sedition (against fascism parading as “freedom”) is a very timely and fashionable construct in which to engage.

I do not pledge allegiance to a flag, country, government, or constitution, in which the freedom to be an individual, with individual thought, speech and action is a banned activity.

But, Jay, you may say: China controls Tiktok. Perhaps.

And I’ve personally proven out that TikTok is not a bastion for free speech, but it does allow opposition to the US government narrative propaganda under the Smith-Mundt Act.

I’m not attached to “TikTok”, even though I put out a lot of information about judicial corruption there. I’m open to ANY forum that allows this, and that’s why I enjoy Substack.

But the Constitution is toast going forward. Anything we do from here on out will be measured against the inferred national security threat of controlling the narrative.

You do understand that “controlling the narrative” is a national security concern, don’t you?

All government operate by force. Here, that force is supposed to be measured by the Supreme law of the land, the Constitution. Today, SCOTUS burned the Constitution at the stake, to make an example going forward for anyone else who may dare to offer a platform that they can’t control.

It’s not about China. It’s not about an actual national security threat. It’s about your FREE SPEECH being an UNSPOKEN national security threat.

And that, dear reader, is the epitaph of the United States of America.

Some of the contradictory or bullshit statements in the SCOTUS decision:

Government action that suppresses speech because of its message “contravenesthis essential right.” Quoting Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC, 512 U. S. 622 (1994).

[“it’s (speech on Tiktok) message” as it applies to this case, is that free speech offered by a foreign adversary is a threat to national security, when the truth is, it’s only a threat because it contravenes the control narrative offered by the US.]

“Content-based laws—those that target speech based on its communicative content—are presumptively unconstitutional and may be justified only if the government proves that they are narrowly tailored to serve compelling state interests.” Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 576 U. S. 155, 163 (2015).

[Again, SCOTUS offers a statement that doesn’t meet scrutiny. The “communicative content” of this decision (case law) , and the law banning TikTok is that free speech offered on a foreign adversary’s platform is dangerous.]

“The Government also supports the challenged provisions with a content-neutral justification: preventing China from collecting vast amounts of sensitive data from 170 million U. S. TikTok users.”

[Guess who makes the phone in your hand, or the computer in my hands? Guess who makes the security cameras in your house? Guess who makes the routers that allow all of these things access to the internet? Mostly China. If they want your information, they already have it… Saying that TikTok is the poster child of Chinese collection of “sensitive data” is awkardly humorous in that it shows the logical fallacy of ignoring the examination of already existing technological exposure to sensitive data mining available to China by their production and manufacturing of most all of our data infrastructure.]

“Data collection and analysis is a common practice in this digital age. But TikTok’s scale and susceptibility to foreign adversary control, together with the vast swaths of sensitive data the platform collects, justify differential treatment to address the Government’s national security concerns.”

[SCOTUS even admits that data collection and analysis is common practice. Then they create the ambiguous frames of TikTok’s “scale” and “vast swaths of sensitive data” to “justify differential treatment to address the Government’s “national security concerns”. BULLSHIT]

The SCOTUS decision offers this as a scenario…

TikTok can access “any data stored in the user’s contact list,” including names, contact information, contact photos, job titles, and notes. Access to such detailed information about U. S. users, the Government worries, may enable “China to track the locations of Federal employees and contractors, build dossiers of personal infor-mation for blackmail, and conduct corporate espionage.”

[Understand, there are no Chinese people on Facebook or Instagram, or Linkedin… WHERE THIS SAME INFORMATION CAN BE EASILY OBTAINED…]

I’ll stop there. But just know that this is the Outcome:

In addition to the already mentioned observations in my post “Profanity”, I will add that if courts can destroy absolute rights by inserting an inferred (and not demonstrated as actual) threat, then I consider this to be them operating in their “sacred” power, and it furthers my resolve to embrace the profane in this life.

P.D., Jay Vincent Shore