It’s hard to believe after the last 2 years that things could get any worse, but Canadians have found out that anything is possible when you have a pretty boy wanna-be dictator at the helm.

When the whole trucker convoy started in Canada and exposed that it was more than just a “fringe minority” who weren’t happy with the way things were going, who could have guessed that it would just lead to more tyranny?

Well, anyone who saw what happened in the U.S. on January 6, 2021 and then the aftermath of locking people up without a fair trial for trespassing in the “People’s House” probably could have seen what was coming in Canada.

Let’s remember that the trucker convoy started because it was a protest against tyranny.  While Canada endured a lot of lockdowns and restrictions, the specific issue being protested, at least at the start, was the vaccine mandates.  In 2021, governments worldwide decided that its subjects should be forced to take experimental government “treatments” or risk not being able to work and provide for themselves and their family.

It all started out well for the protesters.  It gathered momentum and support quickly, and many of them were having fun in the streets.

This irritated the pretty boy tyrant to no end, so it was rather obvious where the whole thing was going.  Trudeau has been one to praise Castro and the communism of China.  He doesn’t praise communist dictators for their ability to negotiate peacefully with their subjects.

Trudeau brought down the hammer good and hard.  Not only did he send in the police (or was it some kind of military?) to arrest and brutalize the protesters, but he did much better.  He gave the government (himself) the power to freeze bank accounts, not just for the protesting truckers, but for anyone who dared to support them.

So if, a month ago, you didn’t like the vaccine mandates and saw the trucker convoy as a movement that you supported and decided to throw 50 bucks in support of them, now you may not have access to “your” money any longer.  So because you supported something that was in opposition to the Trudeau regime, you are now no longer permitted to pay your rent or buy food for your family unless you can find a creative way to survive without a bank account.

In doing this, not only is Trudeau trying to punish all who opposed him, but he is also acting to prevent people from protesting or speaking out in any way that opposes the regime in the future.  If you don’t like one of Trudeau’s policies or something that he says, if you speak out, then you may go home to find your bank account has been closed.

How’s that for a first-world so-called liberal democracy?

Trudeau has since revoked the Emergency Powers Act that he initially invoked to take these actions.  Perhaps he didn’t like the label of dictator in a derogatory way and didn’t want to press his luck.

But the power is still there.  The damage is already done.  And we can expect that the truckers and other protesters will be handled in similar fashion to the people who entered the Capitol building on January 6, 2021.  Even though almost all of the truckers did nothing violent, their lives will be made a living hell.

No matter what kind of government rules, the rulers always rely on the consent of the people.  Unfortunately, in Canada, there are way too many people who accept the tyranny of the Trudeau government.  They believe what he says, and they are obedient to his words.

The good news is that what has happened has opened a lot of eyes.  There are many more Canadians today who understand that they are living under an authoritarian government.

I think Trudeau must have sensed that he had overstepped his bounds, even for him.  It is possible, even in a first-world country, to lose control.

Imagine if some of the Ottawa police officers went home for dinner that night and got a lecture from a wife or a mother saying that it was unacceptable to act as a thug on behalf of a dictator.  Imagine a wife telling her husband that he can sleep in his car in the garage until he finds his soul and realizes that he shouldn’t be brutalizing innocent people just because it’s for a paycheck.

If the people get restless enough and the dictator gets violent enough, eventually the violence can turn onto the dictator.  All it takes is for one person or a few people to turn on him and he might be strung up in the town square.  I have to imagine that Trudeau realized this.

If Trudeau pushed far enough, even his buddy Klaus Schwab might not be able to bail him out in time or get him onto the next flight to seek asylum in the Caribbean.

The story of Canada will be an interesting one to follow in the coming months.  Will the Canadians regain their liberty, at least to the degree that it existed in 2019?  For their sake, I certainly hope so.

The Biden administration, along with many of its war hawk allies in the media, is lecturing the Russians about aggressiveness.  Or maybe they are lecturing us so that we don’t stop and notice some of the finer details.

Analyzing the situation in Ukraine is a bit like trying to analyze different regions of the Middle East.  You are dealing with a lot of history, government changes, changes in land control, and different factions of people.  It is a complicated situation to say the least in Ukraine.

But here are some things that aren’t complicated.

First, the U.S. government backed a coup in 2014 that overthrew the democratically-elected government of Ukraine that just so happened to be somewhat friendly towards Russia.

In fact, if the U.S. government hadn’t helped with this coup, then it is likely that none of this would be happening right now.  Crimea wouldn’t have gone to Russia, and Russia wouldn’t have announced independent regions in eastern Ukraine as we are seeing now.

A second thing that isn’t complicated is that, despite assurances to the contrary, NATO has been getting closer and closer to Russia since not long after the breakup of the Soviet Union.

Russia simply doesn’t want NATO (i.e., the United States) right on its border with missiles ready to launch.

Imagine if Russia or any other country overthrew the government in Mexico and then wanted to bring Mexico into its alliance and put missiles near the Texas border.  Do you think that would go over well with most Americans, let alone the war hawks in Washington DC?

This is in no way a defense of everything Putin has done or will do in the future.  He is a politician, and there is little doubt he enjoys his power.  The difference is that he actually seems to care about the people he rules over, or at least his actions seem to indicate that.  And Putin doesn’t seem interested in having a massive war, which can’t always be said for Washington DC.

The Hypocrisy

Even if what is happening now should be considered an invasion by Russia or Russian aggressiveness, and even if the U.S. hadn’t helped overthrow the government in Ukraine in 2014, it is still the height of hypocrisy for American officials and media to be lecturing anyone about invasion and aggressiveness.

Just since the turn of the century, look at U.S. foreign policy.

• In late 2001, the U.S. invaded Afghanistan and occupied the country for nearly 20 years.
• In 2003, the U.S. again went to war in Iraq and occupied the country and is still involved there to this day.
• In 2011, the U.S. invaded Libya and assassinated its leader.
• After not gaining support from Congress or the American people, the U.S. government still went to war in Syria in 2014 and attempted to overthrow the leader there.
• The U.S. government helps to sanction Yemen and starve children in what is already one of the poorest countries on the planet.

And these are just some of the more obvious interventions that mostly involved sanctions, bombings, assassinations, and occupation.  There are many other smaller military and covert operations in other parts of the world.

But the war hawks in the media and U.S. government officials are going to lecture the world about Russian aggressiveness towards Ukraine?

In Canada, Justin Trudeau just announced his plans to use his version of the Enabling Act.  The truckers and their allies are protesting the COVID restrictions from the last two years and particularly the vaccine mandates that began in 2021.  But Trudeau won’t back down.  He is in fact going full totalitarian.

Meanwhile, Joe Biden is cheering on Trudeau and telling him to use any means necessary to quash the protests.

Over the last year, I have heard many people question why there are protests all over Europe and other places, yet there is very little in the United States.  The reason isn’t because Americans are more passive.  The reason is because the restrictions have not been as bad in the U.S., as hard as that is to believe.

People have lost their jobs over vaccine mandates, and that continues to happen to this day.  But overall, the same restrictions don’t apply in the U.S. as in some of these other supposedly first-world countries.  Americans also have a choice of moving to a freer state.  It isn’t an easy choice, but it is a choice.

The Super Bowl was held in Los Angeles where the stadium was packed with mostly maskless people.  This includes many hypocritical celebrities.

Even with vaccine mandates in some big cities, they are starting to be rolled back or not enforced.  Some mayors are starting to suggest that they weren’t meant to be permanent.  Meanwhile, you have many of the previous COVID hysterics who had been deemed “experts” starting to say that we have to learn to live with the risk of the virus and get on with life.

This is not a coincidence.  They see which way the parade is marching, and they are getting out in front of it.

The establishment relies on the consent of the people.  They understand if they keep issuing edicts and most everybody ignores them, then it won’t look good.  They would rather pretend that it was their expertise that called an end to the “pandemic” and led us back to normal.

Consent of the People

In the mid 1500s, a man named Etienne de la Boetie pointed out that all rulers rely on the consent of the governed.  It doesn’t have to be an explicit consent, but at least an implicit consent in accepting the ruling system.

If the rulers lose this consent to too many people, then their rule collapses.

Look at the United States.  There are about 330 million people.  There is only one president.  There are only 535 members of Congress.  There are only 9 Supreme Court justices.  There is only one Federal Reserve chairman,

All of these people rely on people being obedient to the system.  Some might complain about the president or members of Congress, and some might even despise the individuals in office.  But if they still consent to the system, then the rule continues.  The rulers themselves may change over time, but the power is still there as long as people obey.

In one of his writings, de la Boetie wrote:

“Obviously there is no need of fighting to overcome this single tyrant, for he is automatically defeated if the country refuses consent to its own enslavement: it is not necessary to deprive him of anything but simply to give him nothing; there is no need that the country make an effort to do anything for itself provided it does nothing against itself.  It is therefore the inhabitants themselves who permit, or, rather, bring about, their own subjection, since by ceasing to submit they would put an end to their servitude.”

He continues: “A people enslaves itself, cuts its own throat, when, having a choice between being vassals and being free men, it deserts its liberties and takes on the yoke, gives consent to its own misery, or, rather, apparently welcomes it.”

So while it is better to have a kind and benevolent ruler, if there is such a thing, it is impossible for a country to be ruled by one man or by a small group of people without a large portion of the population consenting.

It is nice to see that Joe Biden’s approval ratings are in the toilet.  Hopefully this means that people just aren’t consenting to his sometimes-dictatorial rule.  In the long run, it isn’t about any one man.  Getting rid of Joe Biden isn’t going to solve all of our problems.  It may solve a few in the short run, but ultimately what matters is how much people are willing to tolerate.

So while Biden and his handlers deserve much criticism, it is really the system that needs to be changed.  It is the concept that such a small group of people is able to inflict so much damage over a large population.  But it is only because a good portion of that population consents to the corrupt system.

Oh Canada

The reason there are mass protests in some places while the rulers double down on their power is because the population is largely split.

It is hard to say exactly, but probably half of the Canadian population wants the mandates and COVID restrictions to go away.  The other half are accepting of them to a large degree and listen to the state media and those deemed “experts”.

Much of my extended family lives in Canada, and I can tell you that most of them are not really on the side of the truckers.  Maybe they don’t disagree with everything the truckers have to say, and maybe they don’t agree with everything that Trudeau is doing, but they generally consent to their rulers.  They enable the people who make their lives miserable.  The rulers don’t care about their subjects at all except to the degree that they are obedient.

This is why there is a standoff.  It is why Trudeau is trying to make the whole thing violent.  Of course, Trudeau has been using the threat of violence all along, which is the problem.  If he were to simply withdraw the restrictions and mandates, then the protests would end.

Trudeau can invoke an emergency and, at least for now, get away with it because about half of the Canadian population consents to it.  They accept it.  They are obedient.  They enable the very people who are their enemies, but they don’t see it.

This is really the problem everywhere.  It is often split down the middle.  Half of the population just wants to be left alone while half of the population wants to impose their will on others, or at least grant the power to their rulers to do so.

It is not quite this clean, but you can see the dividing lines with COVID.  I’m not saying that half the population is libertarian.  But on COVID restrictions and mandates, it probably is fair to say that half of Americans do hold a mostly libertarian position on the subject now.

The good news out of the last 2 years is that more people are seeing the problems of the entire corrupt system.  They are seeing that you shouldn’t trust the “experts”.  In fact, when the establishment media is telling you to trust the “experts”, it typically makes more sense to the do the opposite.

It is hard to say what the next decade will bring, but there is less consent for the rulers today than there was 2 years ago.  This is positive for the long-term prospects for liberty.

The Federal Reserve held a secret meeting on February 14, 2022.  We can guess that it wasn’t a happy Valentine’s Day for Jerome Powell and company.

The Fed is stuck between a rock and a hard place.  This is after getting away with massive monetary inflation and ultra low interest rates since the fall of 2008.

There have been major consequences from the Fed’s loose monetary policy, as it misallocated resources and allowed the government to continue to run up its debts at a significant pace.  But there never seemed to be an increase in consumer price inflation, at least by how the government measures it.

Now the CPI is coming in at an annual rate of 7.5%.  So it is widely expected that the Fed will start to tighten quickly. First, it actually has to stop its expansion of the balance sheet.  Most financial commentators tend to focus on interest rates instead of the money supply.

The Fed controls the federal funds rate, which is the overnight borrowing rate for banks.  They used to control this rate by increasing or decreasing the money supply, but now it is done more through other measures, including changing the rate paid on excess reserves.

Still, there is a correlation between the low interest rates and the easy money.  They go hand in hand.  As the Fed slows down or stops its balance sheet expansion, it will raise its target federal funds rate.

This will drive up short-term interest rates, which has already begun.  While there has been a lot of focus on the 10-year yield rising to 2%, the shorter-term rates have been more dramatic.  The 2-year yield has gone up to around 1.6%.

The 3-month yield has risen in less than two weeks from 0.19% to 0.43%.

The 1-month yield is still near zero.

When the 2-year yield goes above the 10-year yield, this will be significant.  It will be more significant when the 3-month yield goes above the 10-year yield, which could still take a while.

There is a lot of uncertainty in the financial markets, but an inverted yield curve is one thing that has been a near certainty through modern history.  When short-term rates exceed long-term rates, a recession is on the horizon.

I have somewhat discussed recession and a stock market crash in tandem, as if they will happen around the same time.  Perhaps this is a mistake.  It is quite possible that a crash in stocks could happen before a recession is evident.  Or we might see a decline in stocks for several months that isn’t too sharp, and then see a major crash when the whole economy goes down.

We may also see parts of the Everything Bubble go first before stocks.  It would not surprise me if cryptos, NFTs, and other major speculations fall hard before we see stocks fall hard.

Keep an eye on the yield curve.  If it inverts, you should prepare for a recession and a major downturn in stocks.  You should probably prepare for a major downturn in stocks no matter what.

The Fed is stuck.  If they keep the easy money flowing with low interest rates, then price inflation will just get worse.  If they slam on the monetary brakes too hard, it will lead to a quick and nasty recession.  Of course, the next recession will be nasty no matter what, but it is just a question of when.

The good thing about the Fed raising rates is that it will help expose the malinvestment, and it will hopefully force the federal government to restrain its spending at least a little bit.

I am happy I refinanced my mortgage last year.  I don’t know if we’ll ever see mortgage rates that low again.

Still, if the Fed can get the inflation under control and we see a major recession, long-term rates could fall again.  Bonds are the one piece of the Everything Bubble that may hold up longer than the rest, but that isn’t clear at this point.

Even though price inflation is roaring, it is still important to hold some cash/ cash equivalents, as things can change very quickly.  You won’t go wrong having some liquidity, even if it is currently depreciating at 7.5% annually.

The latest consumer price index (CPI) numbers were released, and it isn’t pretty.  The CPI went up 0.6% for the month of January 2022.  Year-over-year price inflation now stands at 7.5%.

Even the less volatile median CPI went up 0.6% for the month, and the year-over-year median CPI stands at 4.2%.

In other words, from January 2021 to January 2022, your dollars have depreciated in value by 7.5%.  If you were buying a house or a used car, you probably did a lot worse than 7.5%.

After almost a decade and a half of loose monetary policy from the Federal Reserve, the Fed is now forced to address the issue of inflation.  Of course, the Fed’s massive increase in its balance sheet is the inflation, but the prices are finally starting to reflect it.

It is now widely expected that there will be multiple Fed rate hikes in the coming months.  This means that the Fed will raise its target range for the federal funds rate, which largely impacts short-term interest rates.

Unless something drastic happens like a massive stock market crash, then we should expect short-term interest rates to rise this year.  They will finally move up and away from being near zero.

It is less clear where longer-term rates will go.  The 10-year yield has hit 2%, which is higher than where it’s been recently, but it is still very low compared to history.

If short rates go up and long rates stop going up, then we will see a flattening of the yield curve.  If the yield curve inverts later this year, this will be a strong signal to not only sell equities, but to short them.

Even with an inverted yield curve where short-term rates go higher than long-term rates, it can take time for everything to play out.  It’s hard to believe, but we could still be over a year away before the Everything Bubble finally starts to implode.  Until we get a clearer signal from the yield curve, I would be hesitant to bet against the market at this point.

Real Wages and Living Standards are Going Down

Think about what a 7.5% price inflation rate means for middle class America.  It means that living standards are going down.  Maybe taking on debt or just not saving as much covers some of this up temporarily, but it inevitably means a decline in lifestyle.

There is no way that real wages are going up or even staying the same.  While the labor market is good these days for those looking for work, companies can’t just pay massive increases to employees without suffering a loss in profitability.

Wages are not going to keep up with the rate of price inflation, especially at this level.  And even if they supposedly do, you have to think through how well people really are doing.

Let’s say that you have your annual review at work with Corporation ABC.  Your boss says that you have been doing a good job and that you have become very reliable since starting at Corporation ABC 5 years ago.  He tells you the great news.  You are getting a salary increase of 7.5%.

The problem is that you have more experience now and are a bigger benefit to your employer than you were last year, let alone 5 years ago.  But your wages are only keeping pace with inflation, so you haven’t really gotten a raise even though your value to the company has increased.

But are your wages even keeping pace with inflation?  If we accept the government statistics, then prices went up 7.5% over the past year.  You were already paying the higher prices before you got your “raise” of 7.5% from your employer. That doesn’t make up for paying the higher grocery bill last month.  It briefly catches you up to the Federal Reserve.

Now the process starts all over again.  You have to wait another year before another “raise” at work while prices relentlessly climb higher in the meantime.

It gets worse.  When you get that 7.5% increase, you have to pay payroll taxes and income taxes at your highest marginal tax rate.  That 7.5% may only be 5.5%.

Unfortunately, the government doesn’t tell you that you don’t have to pay any taxes on that additional 7.5% of your income because it is just making up for the Federal Reserve’s inflation of the money.  There may be an increase in the exemption amount on your tax return, but it will not cover the difference.  Plus, the horrible payroll taxes come out of every dollar you earn without adjustment.

So your 7.5% raise may end up being a 5.5% raise to cover the 7.5% that prices went up last year.  Does this sound like a good deal for middle class America?  How is that working out for everyone?

But the government can spend (waste) trillions of dollars on everything under the sun while imposing rules that make our lives more difficult and costly.

There is only one solution to all of this.  The Federal Reserve must stop creating money out of thin air and supporting the massive government debt.  If the government massively cuts its spending while the Fed stops its money creation, then the inflation will stop.  It’s that simple.

Meanwhile, middle class America takes it on the chin.  Real wages are going down.  It will feel more real when the Everything Bubble finally collapses.

We are living through a time when some are trying to censor the speech of others.  This is happening both through government and private individuals and businesses.

When Neil Young called for Spotify to remove Joe Rogan’s content or else to remove his, this is a private individual acting voluntarily as far as we know.  He simply didn’t like some of the things that were being said on Rogan’s programs, or maybe Young just didn’t like what others were saying what was being said on Rogan’s programs.  My guess is that he didn’t listen to more than a few minutes of a Rogan episode.

In many cases, there is a blurred line between private individuals and companies and government.  This is particularly true when it comes to large companies.  When Congress calls the CEOs of major social media companies to testify, and then we see these companies censoring certain people, is this really just market action?

The government may not be explicitly threatening these companies to ban certain speech, but there is an implicit threat that these companies could find trouble in the form of investigations, tax audits, and future regulations if they don’t “behave” correctly and ban what is deemed unacceptable speech.

It’s sad that people have to be reminded of this, but the point of free speech is that unpopular speech be allowed.  In this case, it is unpopular speech for the establishment.

I can’t remember a time when I have seen this hardcore push for censorship.  There was definitely a lot of sensitivity after 9/11, and there is the example of Bill Maher getting in trouble for saying the terrorists weren’t cowards.

However, after 9/11, if someone went against the establishment narrative, it was more common to see the person ignored or attacked.  There usually weren’t calls for censorship.  This was also true in the lead up to the war in Iraq in 2002 and 2003.

It’s important to acknowledge that part of the reason for this increased call for censorship is because there is more speech to be censored.  Before the internet became widespread, most people got their news from one of three or four major networks and maybe a newspaper.  The only major place with somewhat alternative views was conservative talk radio, but even much of this still followed the establishment line on the major issues.

Now we have podcasts, blogs, social media, videos, and millions of websites that offer alternative viewpoints.  This is why there is so much call for censorship.  It’s because the power elite are having trouble controlling the narrative.

It’s also important to acknowledge that this isn’t the first time free speech has been under major attack.  In fact, it was much worse in previous times, even in the United States.

The ink was barely dry on the Bill of Rights when the Alien and Sedition Acts were imposed, which basically prohibited people from criticizing the government.  There were also periods of major tyranny and bans of speech during war, most notably during the so-called Civil War and World War I.

Why Not Debate?

Whenever there have been calls for censoring speech, it almost always means that the person or group has bad motives, whether it is coming from a government or a company or an individual.  They are purposely trying to shut others up because they don’t like what they have to say, and they don’t want to engage in any debate.

It is never my instinct to want to censor somebody when they are saying something I don’t like.  I may want them to shut up and go away, but I don’t want to stop them from speaking.  I certainly don’t want the government to take any action.

Perhaps it gets a little tricky when dealing with companies providing a platform.  I am understanding to a point of not wanting to allow people speaking who are doing so for the reason of purposely degrading others.

If we look at Joe Rogan, he wasn’t purposely trying to degrade others or spread hate.  He interviews people with different viewpoints.  Sometimes he’ll have a guest on one week who contradicts what another guest said the previous week.  He is trying to get different viewpoints out there while making it interesting and entertaining.

Why doesn’t Neil Young address specifically what he thinks is “misinformation”?  Why doesn’t he go on Rogan’s show and speak about where he thinks some of the doctors on Rogan’s show got it wrong?  I think Rogan would probably have Young on his show.  Even before Young’s ultimatum to Spotify, Rogan may have had him on the show.

When it comes to corporations, I think sometimes they are just trying to minimize the headaches.  That is why the default position is to follow the establishment narrative.  This also tends to be a leftist narrative, as the left is far more destructive in its protests.

But there are many people and many companies who go out of their way to try to censor others on other platforms.  They would rather censor than debate.  It’s because they know they are incapable of debating well.  It is easier to shut the other side up.

When you look at COVID and the vaccines, there are some major figures who have arisen who oppose the hysteria and the vaccine mandates.  Some of them even question the safety and efficacy of the COVID vaccines.  The COVID hysterics are trying to get these people censored.  Yet, most of these people would be more than happy to debate Joe Biden or Dr. Fauci or Bill Gates or the CEO of Pfizer or any high-profile COVID hysteric and vaccine pusher.  In fact, they would probably debate someone who is only somewhat prominent.

But these debates don’t happen because the COVID hysterics and vaccine pushers (the tyrants) don’t want to debate.  They will have to deal with facts and arguments, which they can’t.  They will have to deal with explaining the irrationality of the lockdowns and the vaccine mandates.

Sanjay Gupta of CNN went on Rogan’s show, and he had to deal with questions that he wasn’t accustomed to.  He couldn’t defend CNN’s trashing of Rogan over taking Ivermectin, which the establishment referred to as horse paste.

Could you imagine Dr. Peter McCullough or Dr. Robert Malone debating someone like Fauci?  Imagine some of these challenging questions.

“The CDC admitted that the COVID vaccines don’t stop transmission, so why are there vaccine mandates if they don’t stop the spread?”

“Dr. Fauci, you said in 2020 that PCR tests run at 35 cycles or higher are not reliable because they produce false positives.  So why, from near the beginning, was the FDA recommending to run the PCR tests up to 40 cycles or more?”

“Why did the FDA authorize the Pfizer vaccine when more people in the trial died in the vaccinated group than the non vaccinated group?”

“Why did the FDA and CDC count anyone as a COVID death if they died within 4 weeks of testing positive, even if COVID wasn’t the reason for their death?  How many people would die of the common cold each year if we counted it the same way?”

“Why did the FDA claim that 98% of hospitalizations were non vaccinated people using data going back to January 2021 when most people were not fully vaccinated at that time?  And why do we not get any current statistics on the percentage of vaccinated hospitalizations?”

“In 2021, why did the FDA change its guidelines that they would only count someone who is vaccinated as having COVID if the test is run at 28 cycle or less while not having the same standard for those who aren’t vaccinated?”

Imagine a three-hour debate with these kinds of questions.  I’m sure someone like Fauci would have some weasel words to answer the questions (or avoid the questions), but it would severely expose him.  Most people don’t even know the facts presented within the questions.  It would be a devastating blow to the COVID narrative.

Now imagine a three-hour debate or interview with Neil Young (or some other celebrity) being challenged with some of these things.  He would be tripping all over himself.  He would walk away with his head down in shame.

The reason most people are trying to censor others and calling it “misinformation” is because they are afraid of others hearing what is being said.  They are afraid of the truth getting out there.  They are afraid the agenda might be exposed for what it really is.

Even for people who truly believe the lies, they want to stick their head in the sand and don’t want alternative viewpoints.  They have no curiosity, and they have no desire to hear anything outside of what they already “know” to be true.

Whenever someone’s primary tactic is censorship instead of actually debating or trying to refute what was said, it should immediately make you suspicious of the person’s motives.

This isn’t true 100% of the time, but when someone is trying to censor someone else, it is usually the person being censored who is closer to the truth.

The mob is going after Joe Rogan.  By that, I mean the establishment mob.  It is the mob trying to censor anything that goes against the official narrative, especially when it comes to COVID.

I like Joe Rogan.  I am not a frequent listener of his podcast, but I will occasionally listen to clips of his show or even an entire episode if it is about a subject that interests me.  I have a friend who listens to him, and he would send me episodes that he thought would interest me.  This goes back at least a few years (before COVID hysteria).

I appreciate that Rogan has on differing points of view.  At the same time, I have expressed frustration with him.  I am more often frustrated when he has a guest on with whom I don’t agree because I feel like Rogan could pin the person down more.

I think there is a difference between challenging someone and being rude.  You can politely challenge someone on a topic.  And if the person avoids a question, I don’t think it is inappropriate to ask the question again with a hint that the original question wasn’t answered.  I understand these are “guests” on his show, but I think anyone going on there with strong opinions should expect a little bit of a challenge, or at least having Rogan play devil’s advocate.

I watched/ listened to the two full episodes that became controversial.  One was with Dr. Peter McCullough, and the other was with Dr. Robert Malone.  In total, this was about 6 hours of COVID talk.

Since the two doctors offer differing viewpoints on COVID and the vaccines as compared to the establishment narrative, the mob had to attack Rogan.  They know that tens of millions of people heard at least some of what was said.

It really heated up when musician Neil Young said that he didn’t want his music sold on the same platform as Rogan’s podcast.  So Spotify actually removed Young’s music.  Then the mob really came after Rogan and Spotify.

Spotify felt compelled to issue a statement saying that it would put a warning label on certain content to warn people of possible “misinformation”.

Rogan also posted a selfie video where he somewhat apologized for causing so much controversy and to thank Spotify for all that the company has done.  Rogan put out an olive branch, even complimenting Neil Young and his music and telling a story of working at a Young concert when he was younger.

I think he was trying to present himself as humble and as someone who wanted to get along.  He wanted to make it clear that he isn’t some kind of vicious animal or right-wing extremist (which he isn’t).  In this sense, he did a pretty good job.

At the same time though, he showed severe weakness, and I fear that the mob will capitalize on this and keep going after him until he completely folds.  Rogan said that he will try to balance things out on his shows.

What does that mean?

I feel like Rogan is accepting the premise set by his haters.  They are saying that he is spreading misinformation.  Rogan correctly says that he is just having a conversation with people, and also that he has never claimed to be perfect.  That’s all fine, but he shouldn’t accept or leave unchallenged that he is spreading misinformation.

He can’t guarantee that everything every one of his guests says on his show will be 100% accurate.  He had someone from CNN on his show, so we know that can’t be the case.

What about all of the misinformation from Dr. Fauci, and the CDC, and the FDA, and the pharmaceutical companies, and from the establishment news media?  What about the misinformation from the president of the United States who said that if you get the COVID vaccine then you can’t die?

CNN never balances out its narrative.  It is one viewpoint only, and that is to follow the science, which is whatever the official opinion-makers have to say that day.  Whatever the current science is that day, you should follow it like an obedient citizen because that is what CNN is telling you to do, and it is backed up by the “experts”.

I’ve never heard any alternative viewpoints coming from CNN since the COVID hysteria began.  It’s not that I watch CNN much, but I’m sure I would have heard about it.  But CNN will gladly spread misinformation about Joe Rogan and say that he is taking horse paste for his COVID.

If Rogan is spreading misinformation, then what is CNN and the rest of the corporate media doing?

Rogan has absolutely no obligation to balance out his show any more than Tucker Carlson does.  If anything, we need more of the episodes that the mob is complaining about.  We need more Rogan in order to balance out what just about every television station and newspaper across the country have to say.

Rogan probably has something like 10 million listeners.  If CNN got one-tenth of the audience for one its shows, it would be considered a great success.

Still, everywhere you turn outside of the alternative media, it is the same talking points of COVID hysteria.  They have finally started to concede that maybe lockdowns weren’t such a good idea and that maybe masks aren’t that effective.  Even this is done in near unison.

Rogan is a platform where people can hear alternative voices.  He just happens to be one of the biggest platforms because his show was already popular.  So it is no surprise that the mob is going after him with everything.

But here is my message to Joe Rogan.  Don’t give in to the mob.  You can be kind and respectful in what you say, but you don’t have to apologize to them when you did nothing wrong.  You don’t have to meet any of their demands.

If you start bending to them, they will only demand more.  You can try to “balance out” your programming, but it will only strengthen the enemy.  They won’t be satisfied with that.  They will only be satisfied when you stop giving a platform to those with alternative viewpoints that are counter to the official narrative.

After the beating that Sanjay Gupta (of CNN) took when he was on the show, I don’t think many high profile people will want to be on there.  They are not used to being challenged on their COVID hysteria with facts and reasoning.  I don’t think Dr. Fauci will be sitting down for a 3-hour interview to talk about PCR tests, vaccines, and gain-of-function research.  That’s just my guess.

You can’t ever please the mob unless you join them.  You don’t have to join them.  You don’t have to apologize.

Joe Rogan has a massive platform.  If Spotify ends up folding and dumping Rogan (and costing them a lot of money), Rogan can find another outlet.  People will follow him.

We need these alternative voices.  But we also need courage, which is what has been lacking the most over the last 2 years.  It isn’t just common sense.  It is courage that has really been the distinguishing factor.

I hope that Joe Rogan finds the courage to not kneel before the mob and that he continues to spread information to people seeking the truth.  We don’t expect perfection from your guests or you.  We expect an open dialogue where the truth can be sought.