AntiCorporatism

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

September 17, 2026AntiCorporatism

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.

September 14, 2026September 14, 2026AntiCorporatism

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.

Americans for Ingredient Transparency: The Industrial Food Front Group

August 27, 2026AntiCorporatism

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.

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

August 12, 2026AntiCorporatism

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

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

August 7, 2026AntiCorporatism

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.

The DSA & Slavery: Justifying The Democratic Socialists of America Platform, and the Justification for Slavery

August 4, 2026AntiCorporatism

The fight against the ideology of the Democratic Socialists of America and its current “Workers Deserve More” program is waged by people with the same principles and morality as those who fought in favor of slavery in the United States. This becomes unmistakable once the arguments used to justify the DSA platform are placed side-by-side with the arguments once used to justify slavery.

Although the two platforms are positioned from different perspectives, both arguments are morally and ethically the same:

Argument 1: These elements of society are “rights”

The DSA platform repeatedly frames healthcare, housing, education, and other goods and services as human rights that must be guaranteed at no cost to the individual. Housing is explicitly called a “human right.” Universal healthcare is to be provided with no premiums, co-pays, or deductibles. College is to be free. A 32-hour workweek is demanded with no reduction in pay or benefits. Basic needs are to be guaranteed, and the largest corporations are to be placed under public ownership and therefore under political control. Read more →

Forever Wars, Forgotten Names, and the Interests That Never Leave

July 29, 2026July 28, 2026AntiCorporatism

Biden’s 40-Page Memo Against the Afghanistan Surge—and the Complex That Ignored It

In the same recordings with ghostwriter Mark Zwonitzer, Biden recounts writing a 40-page handwritten memorandum to President Obama in 2009 arguing against additional troops in Afghanistan. His stated reason was blunt: it “wouldn’t matter.” The day the United States left would look like the day before it arrived.

That memo did not stop the surge. The war continued for another decade-plus. The contractor economy, the revolving door between Pentagon and defense firms, and the permanent national-security bureaucracy absorbed the policy and kept the machinery running. Read more →

The Autopen Presidency Was Already Running in 2017

July 29, 2026July 28, 2026AntiCorporatism

Memory Lapses, Forgotten Advisers, and the Corporate Machine That Runs the White House

Listen to the 2017 tapes. Biden loses the thread mid-sentence. He cannot recall the name of economic adviser Alan Krueger. He admits he should write names down because he keeps forgetting them. He says he is “so confused.” The pauses stretch. The “ums” multiply.

Special Counsel Robert Hur later cited these very recordings when declining to charge Biden, describing a man with a poor memory who would present as a sympathetic elderly figure to a jury. The Oversight Project release makes the timeline undeniable: the decline was already advanced while Biden was still a private citizen preparing a book. Read more →

Classified Notebooks, Corporate Book Deals: How Biden Monetized the State’s Secrets

July 29, 2026July 28, 2026AntiCorporatism

$8 Million Book Deal Built on Classified Secrets: Biden’s Ghostwriter Tapes Expose the Real Grift . . .

Joe Biden sat with an uncleared ghostwriter in 2016–2017 and read from notebooks containing Situation Room notes, CIA briefings, and DoD material. He repeatedly flagged the sensitivity: “This is classified.” “Some of this may be classified, so be careful.” “I just found all the classified stuff downstairs.” He also noted the White House did not even know he retained the material.

The finished product was a commercial memoir. The reported payoff ran into the multi-million-dollar range for Biden and his family. Read more →

Biden’s Ghostwriter Tapes Confirm It: Silicon Valley Owned Obama Economic Policy

July 28, 2026AntiCorporatism

In the newly released 2017 recordings with ghostwriter Mark Zwonitzer, Joe Biden did not whisper a conspiracy theory. He stated it as fact.

Discussing why the Obama administration failed to pursue certain economic priorities Biden preferred, the then-former vice president said the team was “beholden to the Silicon Valley.” The Valley guys, he claimed, simply “didn’t want” the policies he favored. He called it a “harsh thing to say,” then said it anyway.

This is textbook corporatism: the coercive power of the executive branch appearing subordinate to, but most likely financially benefiting from, the money-making interests of a handful of technology corporations. Not through formal lobbying disclosures or campaign contributions alone, Obama is significantly more wealthy today than he was when he took office, but through the quiet capture of the people who actually set the agenda. Read more →