IMG source - Pinterest.com -
Paintings of Surreal Post Apocalyptic Forgotten Worlds
Over the last few days I've seen various analyses of the Restrict Act, that is claimed by it's proponents to be intended to ban TikTok, but is actually unmitigated control of every bit of information you are allowed to seek, have, or communicate. Mark Moss has detailed the specific language in the bill(s) being proposed and I agree with the horrific interpretation he provides in the linked video.
The utterly criminal federal laws and government we suffer today blatantly impose the most despotic tyranny conceivable, even if the full breadth and depth of such tyranny isn't actually able to be inflicted yet. Written into the Restrict Act is immunity from legal review, Congressional oversight, and even notification of the Executive for weeks of anything it might conceivably do. It's absolutely and utterly unconstitutional, criminal, and clearly potentially genocidal. Why would banning TikTok require such breathtaking despotism?
It doesn't. Blatantly obvious is that whoever is behind this bill is hell bent on ruling over a dystopian hellscape they wield demonic power to torment victims in. Nothing less.
Regardless of passage of this, or any other bill, a comment I saw recently that 'this is the toothpaste coming out of the tube' is the fact. This is what is following the Patriot Act, the Plandemic, and this is the intent of USG as presently functioning.
Make such plans as are applicable to your potential to maintain such freedom and prosperity as you find necessary and convenient. Clearly, it's not something you can rely on government to secure for you - or you can even hope government will not do everything in it's power to end.
We, the people, ourselves, and ourselves alone, can be reasonably expected to secure our felicity, freedom, and futures. Ain't no one else got time for that. That being the case, your failure to take any action you reckon necessary to ensure your enjoyment of the blessings of civilization now or in the future, will be your fault and your fault alone.
It's obvious the WHO, the WEF, the UN, and your government, school, church, local restaurant or book store, or whatever institution you might hope in, isn't going to do that for you. All of them have other - their own - interests, and that's what they're going to do. They're not going to serve you, your family, or your community, except as it serves them.
The only person(s) you can count on to do that is you, yours, and your good neighbors. Lone survivors aren't going to enjoy any blessings of civilization, for long if at all, no matter how extensive their DUMBs (Deep Underground Military Bunkers), vast their fortunes, or ample their knowledge of manufacturing. Civil society is a mutual undertaking, and envisioning life as a lone wolf after the apocalypse is pure vanity, madness, or a symptom of watching too many action flicks. Few people are as content with solitary living as me, and I have chosen to live alone innawoods for stretches of time that most people wouldn't even be able to suffer without considering it torture, to be so deprived of human companionship, company, and conversation.
I haven't even contemplated the utility of DUMBs, or survival in a remote wilderness cabin, or anything like it. If such SHTF that some folks envision such things as necessities, the only potential I reckon for human survival and overcoming such horrors meaningful are utterly dependent on communities of people. Free people can only survive anything coming as society. Nothing less can succeed.
Accept no substitutes.
Banning TikTok from government owned devices used to conduct government business is a prudent thing to do. But banning TikTok in general is unconstitutional enough, no additional elements of the bill are necessary, so even if none of the things that Mark pointed out is actually true (obviously I have not read the bill), the basic premise shows intent to introduce something that is unconstitutional.
U.S. Constitution has one fatal flaw. It is a cage. But its metal bars got very rusty over two hundred years, some even fell off, and the Beast of Government is sticking its head out with increased frequency. What the Constitution is missing is some form of punishment for crossing the limits. Since I'm radical, I'd say sponsoring the bill that was later found unconstitutional should carry implied death penalty, that is, it should not be a crime to kill those people. Also everyone involved should immediately lose office and be banned from returning for like five years (every subsequent violation doubles penalty). Now "unconstitutional" does not even mean "illegal", so the deterrent is nonexistent.
Dear @valued-customer !
The world I live in doesn't know about The Restrict Act Banning Tiktok.