(Article by Tom Luongo republished from TomLuongo.me)
Since Trump’s election the campaign to curtail free speech has went into overdrive and we are now far beyond Orwell’s dystopian vision in 1984 in terms of technological infrastructure.
Google makes Big Brother look like George Carlin’s the Hippy Dippy Weather Man with the “hippy dippy weather, man.” The drive to stamp out all forms of political division has only one thing animating it, protecting the drive of the elites I call The Davos Crowd to erect a transnational superstate to herd humanity to their vision of sustainability.
Gabbard is the only person running for the Democratic nomination worth any amount of my time. Her fundamental criticisms of the U.S. warfare state are spot on. She’s sincere about this. It’s costing her stature within her own party.
She’s a committed anti-imperialist. She’s also young, inexperienced and a little bit naive. But that, to me, is part of her charm. It means she is still malleable. She’s smart enough to be outraged about where we are headed and young enough to be flexible about what the solutions are to stop it from happenng.
So, as such, she’s the perfect champion for the defenders of free speech and critics of the U.S. empire. A young, attractive, intelligent woman of mixed-race heritage with a service record who stands athwart the mainstream on the most important issue in politics today: the U.S. empire.
The entire time I was growing up the prevailing wisdom was Social Security was the third rail of U.S. politics. That, like so many other pearls of wisdom, was nonsense.
The true third rail of U.S. politics is empire. Any candidate that is publicly against the empire is the enemy of not only the state, it’s quislings in the media, the corporations who profit from it and the party machines of both the GOP and the DNC.
That is Gabbard’s crime. And it’s the only crime that matters.
For that crime Google acted to blunt interest in her campaign in the critical hours after the first democratic debate. So, Gabbard, rightly, sued them.
The two main points of her lawsuit are: 1) suspending her Google Ad account for six hours while search traffic for her was spiking and 2) Gmail disproportionately junked her campaign emails.
This represents an intervention into her ability to speak to voters and, as such, is a violation of not only her First Amendment rights but also, more critically, campaign finance law.
Whether this lawsuit goes anywhere or not is beside the point. Google will ignore it until they can’t and then settle with her before discovery. Gabbard doing this is good PR for her as it sets her on the right side of an incredibly important issue, censorship and technological bias/de-platforming of political outsiders.
It’s also good because if she does pursue this principally, it will lead to potential discovery of Google’s internal practices, lending the DoJ a hand in pursuing all the big tech firms for electioneering.
On a day when it became clear to the world that Robert Mueller led an investigation to affect the outcome of the 2018 mid-term elections (and beyond) while attempting to overthrow an elected President, Gabbard attacking the one of the main pillars of the information control system is both welcome and needed.
Her filing this lawsuit is making it clear that even a fairly conventional Democrat on most all other issues is to be marginalized if she criticizes the empire.
As libertarians and conservatives it is irrelevant if she is conventional in other areas. It doesn’t matter that she’s been to a CFR meeting or two or that she’s anti-gun. She’s not going to be president.
This is not about our virtue-signaling about the purity of essence of our political figures. They are tools to our ends. And on now two incredibly important issues leading up to the 2020 election Tulsi Gabbard is on the right side of them.
She is someone we can and should reach out to and support while she makes these issues the centerpiece of her campaign. Her timing is even more excellent than what I’ve already stated.
Filing this lawsuit is a pre-emptive strike at Google now that she’s qualified for the next two Democratic debates. And it may assist her in breaking out of the bottom tier of the Democratic field, Ron Paul style if she gets her opportunity.
Shedding light on Google’s anti-free speech practices is a fundamental good, one we should celebrate. Dare I say, it’s double plus good.
Read more: TomLuongo.me