First published in 1994, a perennial best seller, The Creature From Jekyll Island has changed the course of history. At first, only relevant among a small cadre on the political right in the 1990s and early 2000s, the ideas and information of this book have rippled out to the mainstream. This is largely due to Ron Paul’s 2008 and 2012 presidential campaigns. In these campaigns Dr. Paul broke a political taboo and spoke about monetary policy and the fraudulent system of The Federal Reserve. Most people never heard of the inflation tax before Paul’s presidential campaigns. (Note: Paul advocated for sound money since the early 70s)
This resulted in a gradual political censorship of Dr. Paul’s campaign and although he had a tremendous impact on thought in the Republican Party, his campaign was marginalized and cancelled to a great degree. This was done by an orchestrated media censorship, deliberate marginalization in allotted time in debates, and eventually exclusion from debates, and shadow banning on search engines. These tactics were used to cancel Patrick Buchanan’s 2000 presidential campaign to an even greater degree, because he left the GOP and ran as the Reform Party candidate. The cancellation was so bad that by the time the election came about most people didn’t know he was still in the campaign.
When Trump ran in 2016 it occurred to me early on that it would be extremely difficult for the Republican Party to cancel a billionaire in the primaries. Then when he won the nomination, it was evident that they would not be able to cancel one of the two major party candidates in a presidential election. When Trump became president, it was a hoot, because you can’t cancel the president.
At least, that is what I thought. Then we were hit with the Covid biological weapon, the plandemic, the illegal shut downs, and the fake election. Then, when attempting to contest the fake election, the President of the United States was cancelled. This of course was followed by the deep state’s false flag operation on Jan 6, 2021.
The cancellation of political and medical views started to ramp up in early 2020, as the media, big tech companies, and financial institutions, colluded with the United States government to censor political views and medical views that disputed the false government narrative. Mind control techniques were employed using terms like fact checkers to describe contrary opinions and justify censorship. Somewhere along the line it became okay for public companies to discriminate against people for their political views. This obvious violation of a fiduciary responsibility to stockholders seems to be ignored with no repercussions.
One thing President Trump did was expose to the masses that the Republican Party is controlled opposition. Consider how many laws have been passed that have been designed to stop political discrimination and censorship. If none came to mind, well, there you have it. Now, if you are thinking well the Democrats had congress and even now still have the senate and presidency, stop. Historian, Dr. Tom Woods, wrote a great little book called Nullification. In this book he articulates the historical and legal basis that states can nullify federal laws that are unconstitutional. States naturally can also pass laws that protect the rights of their citizens.
States need to begin passing laws that place huge fines and criminal penalties for each and every time a financial institution, this includes banks, credit card processors, and so on, discriminate based on political positions. A billion dollar fine for each and every instance of political discrimination and severe criminal penalties may send the correct signal.
Still, do businesses like banks and credit card processors have the freedom of association that individuals have?
This is a fair question. Although courts have decided otherwise, there is a legitimate private property position that any business owner should be able to discriminate on any basis. It is after all freedom of association. It may be hard for some people to understand, but there can in fact be opposing points of view, that are both legitimate viewpoints, and have a basis in fact, reason, and logic. Context matters.
This debate occurred back during segregation. And this debate to some degree is still going on in a nuanced manner. Does a Christian family orientated wedding cake business have the right to not make a wedding cake promoting homosexuality? Unlike public rest rooms, there is not an immediate necessity and there is no shortage of wedding cake bakers. While it is a similar issue as what was debated during segregation, it is quite a bit more nuanced. Add in the fact that it is dealing with behavior and not biology and such discussions are not so cut and dry. It is more than simply a question of public and private rights, because there are then questions of whether an individual needs to give up their basic rights to participate in the public sphere.
This discussion matters as there has been a false private property argument in favor of censorship. I say it is false, because in many cases businesses are shielded by the government and thus give up any right to discriminate and censor speech. This is true for social media companies. Once they got a liability shield, I’d argue they have no right to censor political speech. Once they are in bed with government, they lose the right to freedom of association entirely.
The post Fine Financial Institutions for Political Discrimination appeared first on LewRockwell.