The Disease Is Being Sold as the Cure: Don’t Let Them Do to “Corporatism” What They Did to “Liberal”

The Disease Is Being Sold as the Cure: Don’t Let Them Do to “Corporatism” What They Did to “Liberal”

AntiCorporatism

The political left is trying to steal the word “corporatism.”

Not by argument. By use. They are emptying the term of its real meaning and stuffing it with a different one, so that the disease can be sold as the cure. If the theft succeeds, free-market people will be left arguing about a label the other side already controls, while the actual arrangement — government power fused with corporate money — continues under a new slogan. This is the left’s linguistic jujitsu at work again. The same pattern that turned “liberal” from a word for limited government and individual rights into a brand for expanded state power is now being applied to corporatism. The connotative trick is consistent: take a word that names a real problem, attach it to the free market, and prescribe more government as the remedy.

The classical and academic meaning is clear. Corporatism is the organization of society into functional groups — business, labor, professions — that are licensed, mediated, or subordinated by the state. The word comes from corpus, the body politic. Philippe Schmitter’s standard distinction separates state corporatism (authoritarian, compulsory associations under government control) from societal or neo-corporatism (tripartite bargaining among government, employers, and unions). Britannica still defines it as the theory and practice of organizing society into “corporations” subordinate to the state.

Read more →

AI Is a Massive Net Good. Government in the Middle Is the Threat.

AI Is a Massive Net Good. Government in the Middle Is the Threat.

AntiCorporatism

Artificial intelligence will be a massive net good for society if the government stays out of it. Put the government in the middle, partnered with the largest AI companies, and the same technology becomes a tool for controlling what people are allowed to ask and for freezing the market in favor of the firms already on top.

That is the claim. Here is the proof.

When no one is in charge of a tool, people try things. The attempts that work get copied. The attempts that fail get dropped. Nobody has to approve the next version. That is how Linux overtook operating systems that came from ministries and monopoly vendors. It is how ordinary markets improve a product: users leave what does not work, and a rival is free to ship something better. Economists have described this for two centuries. A later popular label, borrowed from physics, calls it emergent order — structure that appears because each person acts on what he sees, not because a central office drew the plan. Open-source AI belongs to that class. Not because the model is honest. A model repeats and recombines what it was trained on, plus whatever the person in front of it asks. It belongs to that class because a bad version can be abandoned and a better version can be released without a permit.

Regulated AI belongs to the other class. Corporatism is government power plus corporate money. The largest labs want rules they can afford and that a smaller shop cannot. Politicians want a lever over the answers the public receives. Each side has what the other wants. The deal is safety language in public, and a moat in practice.

The Claim of Safety Is Just a Moat to Protect Corporate Juggernauts

Read more →

Rare Illnesses Do Not Seem So Rare Anymore . . .

Rare Illnesses Do Not Seem So Rare Anymore . . .

AntiCorporatism

People who have never used the word “appendix” in a medical sentence now know someone with appendix cancer. Young adults are showing up with colorectal tumors that used to belong to their grandparents. Physicians who spent careers calling certain malignancies “rare” are saying the word less often, and with less confidence.

That observation does not require a conspiracy board. The registries already show it. Appendix cancer in the United States rose 232% between 2000 and 2016. Americans born in the early 1980s are several times more likely to receive that diagnosis than Americans born in the 1940s. Colorectal cancer in people ages 20 to 49 is climbing about 3% a year while it falls in the elderly. Carcinoma rates in adolescents and young adults have been drifting upward for decades. In 2026 the National Cancer Institute still reports that overall cancer deaths are falling. Incidence is another story, especially in the young, and especially in tumors that used to be footnotes.

What the observation does not do is hand the public a finished cause. Obesity, ultra-processed food, childhood antibiotics, lockdowns that postponed screening, better detection, and the virus itself are all in the pile. So are the products that a handful of corporations, armed with federal liability shields and captured regulators, rolled out to the entire population in 2021 and then boosted, and boosted again.

The companies prefer that sentence to end before their names appear. A free country is not required to oblige them.

The Record the Defendants Do Not Want Sliced

Read more →

January 24 2023 Duxbury Massachusetts: Look From the Eyes of the Children

January 24 2023 Duxbury Massachusetts: Look From the Eyes of the Children

AntiCorporatism

On January 24, 2023, in a house in Duxbury, Massachusetts, Cora Clancy was five. Dawson Clancy was three. Callan Clancy was eight months old. Their mother killed them. That is not a theory. It is the one fact both sides of the courtroom have already conceded.

A jury later split. A judge declared a mistrial. Commentators rushed to the language that always arrives after a mother kills her children: illness, voices, medication, tragedy, “she was sick.” Some, even all of that language may be true as well as medically serious. Postpartum psychosis exists. Delusion exists. Courts have a test for criminal responsibility. None of that answers the only question that should come first.

What happened to the children? Read more →

If We Take the Flock Camera Question to the Supreme Court, We WILL WIN

If We Take the Flock Camera Question to the Supreme Court, We WILL WIN

AntiCorporatism

The Fourth Amendment does not say the people have a right to be secure against some government files, or against files kept longer than 30 days, or against files a judge later decides they look “too much like a GPS.” It says:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.

Read the nouns. Persons. Houses. Papers. Effects. The right is security from the state.  Period.  End of question. The warrant clause then tells the government the only lawful way to pierce that security: probable cause, oath, and particularity. A particular person. A particular place. A particular effect.

That text does not authorize the government to create a running file on the innocent and rummage it later. It authorizes the government, with a warrant, to take what already exists from a particular target. The state may receive another party’s records when a judge has named the crime and the person. The state may not stand in the road and become the original author of the citizen’s movements, even when it employs a third party to do it for them.

That is why, if this question is framed correctly and taken to the Supreme Court, we will win. Read more →

Let Them Pay Their Own Way: The Data Center Panic Is the Excuse, Tax Breaks and the Socialized Power Bill Are the Crime. China Wins.

Let Them Pay Their Own Way: The Data Center Panic Is the Excuse, Tax Breaks and the Socialized Power Bill Are the Crime. China Wins.

AntiCorporatism

Data centers use a lot of electricity. That sentence is true, and it is not an argument. Steel mills use a lot of electricity. Refineries use a lot of electricity. Aluminum plants use a lot of electricity. In a free country, a large customer who pays the full cost of the power he consumes, the wires built for him, and the damage he actually causes is not a public enemy. He is a customer.

The political class does not want that sentence to stand, because it leaves them with nothing to sell. So the public is handed red herrings: they are “draining the aquifers,” they are “destroying the grid,” they are “stealing your air conditioner in August.” Those lines are useful. They are not the transaction.

The transaction is corporatism. Politicians take the scare, then sit down with the same chief executives to hand out sales-tax exemptions, property-tax abatements, and interconnection rules that let a hyperscale tenant land on the system while households pick up part of the tab. That is not a free market. That is government picking a winner and sending the invoice to people who never asked for the AI datacenter.

The moral rule is simple: they pay their own way. The scandal is the politicians who violate it.

There is a second beneficiary of the panic, and it is not a mystery. The country that most needs American compute delayed, litigated, and regulated into a crawl is China. Beijing does not have to sabotage a single substation if American politicians will do the delaying for them. Democrats have made “guardrails,” moratoria, and climate theater the respectable face of that delay. RINO Republicans — some of them knowing exactly what they are doing, some of them merely chasing the poll and the donor — supply the bipartisan cover. Whether the motive is ideology, committee jurisdiction, or fear of a town-hall crowd, the result is the same: the United States argues with itself while the rival that wants to win the AI contest keeps pouring concrete.

Power Is Real. Socializing It Is the Fraud.

Read more →

Americans for Ingredient Transparency: The Industrial Food Front Group

Americans for Ingredient Transparency: The Industrial Food Front Group

AntiCorporatism

When the largest processed-food and soda companies in America form a coalition and name it “Americans for Ingredient Transparency,” a reasonable person should assume the name is doing work the products cannot. The work is the combining of political power with corporate profit. The product is another propaganda machine, with you and your children’s health in its crosshairs.

Americans for Ingredient Transparency, or AFIT, launched in October 2025 — about the time processed-food companies could see that the Trump administration would no longer protect the official story that had served them for decades. Its public line is simple, and it is propaganda: a “patchwork” of state food laws confuses shoppers, raises grocery prices, and hurts small business. The cure, it says, is one national standard. That is the same promise that accompanied generations of politicians, academia, and “health” officials pushing the processed-food industry’s food pyramid — the inverted advice that helped spawn a diabetes epidemic in the United States.

This is a bid to pull the fight out of statehouses and keep the machine running in Washington, where the same companies already keep full-time lobbyists and where corporatist politicians are happy to sell out their constituents to the interests that fund them.

This is corporatism in its modern form. These companies do not merely sell cereal, soda, and boxed dinners. They use the coercive power of government to lock in rules they can live with and to extinguish rules they cannot — at the expense of your family’s health.

Read more →

The Tyranny of the Average: Why Society Punishes the Very Minds That Advance It

The Tyranny of the Average: Why Society Punishes the Very Minds That Advance It

AntiCorporatism

There is a quiet but relentless pressure in modern society to force every person toward the statistical middle. If a child does not learn the way the plurality of children learn, if an adult prefers solitude to constant social performance, if someone thinks faster, sees patterns others miss, or questions assumptions most people never notice, the response is rarely celebration. More often it is diagnosis, remediation, ranking systems that reward conformity, and a cultural message that difference itself is a problem to be fixed.

The result is a society that treats the average as a moral ideal rather than a mathematical description. And in doing so, it systematically devalues the very people most likely to expand what is possible.

The Historical Record Is Clear

Isaac Newton was an introverted, obsessive, socially difficult man who spent long periods in near isolation. Albert Einstein was a late talker, a poor student by conventional metrics in some subjects, and a thinker who refused to accept the consensus physics of his time. Both were outliers. Both were, by the standards of their peers, deviant in how they learned, worked, and related to the world. Neither was harming anyone. Both changed the trajectory of human knowledge more than thousands of competent, well-adjusted average minds combined.

History is filled with such figures. The pattern is consistent: breakthroughs rarely come from those who fit neatly inside the existing distribution of thought and behavior. They come from people who see differently, process information differently, or refuse to accept the boundaries most people treat as fixed. When society treats those differences as defects rather than potential assets, it is not protecting the common good. It is protecting the comfort of the majority at the expense of progress.

Modern Mechanisms of Enforcement

Read more →

Your Government, Academia, and the Pharmaceutical Industry; Killing You Slowly for Decades: How Corporatism Inverted America’s Diet for the Benefit of the Politically Connected

Your Government, Academia, and the Pharmaceutical Industry; Killing You Slowly for Decades: How Corporatism Inverted America’s Diet for the Benefit of the Politically Connected

AntiCorporatism

For decades, the United States government told Americans to build their diets on grains and to treat fats with suspicion. The 1992 Food Pyramid placed bread, cereal, rice, and pasta at the base—six to eleven servings a day—while instructing citizens to use fats “sparingly.” Low-fat products flooded the market, many of them loaded with sugar and refined carbohydrates. Obesity, type 2 diabetes, and metabolic disease rose in lockstep.

This was not a simple scientific error. It was the predictable result of corporatism: the fusion of government authority with private commercial interests that stood to profit from the advice being issued in the name of public health.

The Documented Proof

In the 1960s, the Sugar Research Foundation paid Harvard scientists the equivalent of roughly $50,000 in today’s dollars to produce a literature review. The resulting 1967 paper in the New England Journal of Medicine minimized evidence linking sugar to heart disease and directed attention toward saturated fat instead. The industry selected the studies, reviewed drafts, and the funding was never disclosed.

Read more →