The Hijacking and Commercializing of Dissent
Creating a Facade of Support While Maintaining the Status Quo

Tracy Turner

The boundaries between public dissent and government-corporate complicity have blurred in today's "information age" (our information vacuum). Tech Titans, politicians, and Media Moguls repeatedly claim to champion free speech and democracy. However, circumspection reveals a disturbing trend of co-optation and commercialization. These "patriots" for "our republic" mostly co-opt within systems that promote control and surveillance. Their mantra seems to be, "We are Champions for Change; we Covertly Support and Worsen the Odious Status Quo."

The Movers and Shakers: Modern-Day Champions of Dissent?

Elon Musk

Elon Musk, CEO of Tesla and SpaceX, presents himself as the defender of free speech, particularly after acquiring Twitter (X). His vocal opposition to censorship has created quite a buzz, but his actions suggest dissent lite. Musk promotes sensationalism over dissenting dialogue by reinstating controversial accounts while selectively banning others. His decision to reinstate accounts associated with hate speech and conspiracy theories has brought concerns about his impact on the public narrative. Critics argue that his view of free speech focuses more on profit than prophets. (Tufekci, 2022).

Tim Cook

Apple's CEO, Tim Cook, is an outspoken advocate for customer privacy. He emphasizes Apple's commitment to protecting user data from government surveillance. However, his swift cooperation with the FBI to unlock iPhones raises privacy and ethics worries. In the San Bernardino case, the FBI's demand for Apple to unlock an iPhone brought this tension to light. While Cook resisted, the story illustrates how technology designed to protect privacy can facilitate state surveillance. The incident exposes the conflict between corporate interests and civil liberties (Greenberg, 2016).

Bill Gates

Bill Gates, co-founder of Microsoft, frequently speaks of technology's role in securing democracy and public health. His wealth and influence in global health initiatives during the COVID-19 pandemic have raised many eyebrows. Gates's funding of vaccine development and international distribution raised concerns about the concentration of power in his hands. The story suggests that his philanthropic efforts could enhance his global power rather than genuinely promote democracy (Choudhury, 2021). 

Critics contend that Gates's financial power allows him to shape public health (government policy) life-or-deathly from one country to another (Mackey, 2021). The press that reports on him is often his subsidiary, MSNBC. They are reporting to their boss. Mr. Gates has not explained facial recognition software, license plate readers, and the 5 billion cameras in America in his tech/democracy lectures.

Donald Trump

Former President Donald Trump represents a Gordian contradiction in free speech. He portrays himself as a populist challenger to the deep state, yet his policies often derailed civil liberties. From suppressing protests to militarizing law enforcement, Trump's actions reveal a readiness to curtail freedoms in the name of police state security. His administration's use of federal agents against protesters in Portland in 2020 exemplifies this trait, exercising willingness to stifle dissent while proclaiming law and order (Yaffe-Bellany, 2020).

Vice President Kamala Harris

Kamala Harris's record as California's Attorney General raises essential questions about her commitment to dissent and social justice. She articulates strong democracy and equity rhetoric, but her past policies have disproportionately impacted impoverished communities, especially her support of the three strikes law. Three strikes law mandated life sentences for persons convicted of three felonies, leading to significant increases in prison rates, particularly among communities of color. Harris appears to be turning her back on her Three Strikes record. (Alexander, 2010).

Research has indicated that "three strikes" frequently resulted in harsh prison terms for non-violent offenders, perpetuating cycles of poverty and criminalization in poorer communities (Hinton, 2016). Harris later acknowledged the law's role in mass incarceration. Still, her initial support of Three Strikes indicates a troubling duplicity: the ability to advocate for change while endorsing policies that uphold status quo power paradigms. This Harris phenomenon reflects a worrisome trend in American politics, where leaders use liberal rhetoric while failing to reform the systems of inequality they help perpetuate (Echols, 2020).

Harris's record exemplifies the need for vigilance in confronting the misalignment between political rhetoric and actions. Actual transformative dissent requires acknowledgment of past mistakes but also a decisive shift toward policies that genuinely support marginalized communities.

Government Agencies: Guardians or Gatekeepers?

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)

The FBI claims to protect American democracy, but its history of surveilling civil rights activists complicates this narrative. Its monitoring of social media and protests today underscores the risks of governmental oversight disguised as protection. For example, the FBI's surveillance of the Black Lives Matter movement reveals a chilling effect on dissent, particularly among marginalized groups, contradicting its self-proclaimed role as a defender of freedoms (Miller, 2020).

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS)

Created after 9/11, the DHS asserts its role in safeguarding the nation. However, its involvement in monitoring domestic protests, particularly during the Black Lives Matter movement, raises serious concerns about civil liberties being compromised in the name of security. The agency's deployment of federal agents to quell dissent in cities like Portland illustrates how government actions prioritize control over genuine democratic engagement (Sullivan, 2020).

The National Security Agency (NSA)

The NSA's dissent repression system indicates a pervasive deep surveillance state. People erroneously believe the issue is surveillance and privacy, which it is not. The NSA's business in America is all Deep State Business: Control, Monitoring, Oversight, Regulation, Tracking, Intrusion Authority, Compliance, Opposition, Brainwashing, Manipulation, Subjugation, Censorship, Coercion, Dominance, Conformity, Death.

Although "The NSA" argues that data collection is vital for national security, its activities often violate Constitutional Rights. Edward Snowden's 2013 revelations exposed the extent of NSA surveillance, sparking a national debate about the imbalance between national security and civil liberties. The agency's operations represent the co-optation of democratic language, where the 1984-esque promise of rights protection is overshadowed by Bolshevistic invasive practices (Schneier, 2015). 

The Rise of Security Technocratic Complex

The integration of Control Monitoring, Oversight, Regulation Tracking, Intrusion, Authority, Compliance, Oppression, Brainwashing, Manipulation, Subjugation, Censorship Coercion, Domination, Conformity, and Death Technology into daily life poses significant challenges to dissent. License plate readers and facial recognition software, marketed as public safety, have profound implications for privacy and civil rights. Studies show that facial recognition technology is inaccurate for people of color, leading to higher rates of wrongful arrests (Buolamwini & Gebru, 2018). This normalization of surveillance tech and AI fosters a state that disproportionately impacts marginalized communities, all under the guise of security. Facial Recognition systems allow people's passports to disappear permanently.

Politicians and the Language of Freedom

Politicians frequently use terms like "freedom," "democracy," and "republic" to connect with constituents while endorsing measures that enhance surveillance. Legislation framed as public safety often expands governmental access to personal data. The USA PATRIOT Act, for instance, was justified as a necessary counterterrorism tool but resulted in extensive civil liberties infringements, highlighting a gap between rhetoric and reality (Lyon, 2003).

Media: The Faux Voices of Dissent

The New York Times and The Washington Post historically defended democracy. However, their recent narratives stifle dissent, favoring a sanitized version of activism that aligns with the elite one percent. Reliance on advertising and corporate sponsorships and pleasing Federal officials can lead to self-censorship, tarnishing their commitment to independent journalism (McChesney, 2004).

The New York Times

The New York Times has published numerous articles that portray protests in ways that emphasize violence or chaos, labeling protestors as "Marxists" or Anarchists," overshadowing systemic issues. A June 2020 article focused so much on looting during Black Lives Matter protests that it ignored the racism that sparked them. This framing risks alienating allies and dilutes the BLM movement's core message (Grynbaum, 2020).

The Washington Post

The Washington Post faces flack for its reporting on government surveillance. Articles often diminish the innuendos of these surveillance programs, portraying them as necessary for national security. This false narrative rationalizes the erosion of privacy and civil rights, thereby silencing dissenting voices that challenge the government (Zittrain, 2015).

Independent Media, the Need for Authentic Dissent

Independent media, by contrast, provides critical views that challenge dominant MSM doublethink newspeak narratives. The Intercept, Truthout, and Jacobin offer grassroots activism and vigilance in defending civil liberties.

The Intercept: offers in-depth analyses of how corporations and government agencies co-opt dissent. Their investigative reporting often uncovers the motivations behind influential figures and institutions, shedding light on the disconnect between rhetoric and action. By challenging mainstream narratives, independent outlets become vital voices for authentic dissent (Klein, 2017).

Truthout: Provides critical analysis and investigative journalism. It focuses on social justice, the environment, and progressive politics, amplifying voices mostly overlooked by mainstream media.

Jacobin: Champions socialist themes and examines capitalism; Jacobin provides bleeding-edge analysis and a thought-provoking narrative on culture, politics, and economics, adopting a vibrant left slant.

The Brutalitarian Nature of Modern Dissent

The Illusions of Choice

Today's politics give an illusion of choice, where dissent appears robust but is controlled by the elites. This myriad reflects George Orwell's 1984, where the state manipulates truth to maintain control. The marketing and governmentalization of activism transforms authentic activism into a marketable, State, on-the-shelf product, unpinning potential for genuine change. Government Bureaus will carry picket signs for us, go home, and shut up. (Bennett, 2012).

The Co-Optation of Activism

Corporations exploit social movements for marketing ploys and sales gimmicks, polluting authentic dissent. During the Black Lives Matter protests, many corporations issued statements of BLM solidarity while continuing practices that perpetuate systemic inequalities. Amazon and Starbucks publicly supported the movement but faced criticism due to their labor practices and mistreatment of employees. This commercialization of activism creates a smokescreen of progressive activism/conservative activism while allowing corporations to maintain the status quo. Mockingbird Stream Media works in lockstep with billionaires and politicians (Williams, 2020).

The Role of Independent Voices

Authentic dissent must prioritize the voices of those most affected by systemic injustices. Independent media outlets provide platforms for marginalized voices, fostering a more inclusive and equitable discourse. By amplifying these perspectives, independent media can challenge mainstream media narratives and promote a genuine understanding of dissent. Nationally in the U.S.A. and Globally, Independent News (which has not been bribed and/or blackmailed) is disappearing.

The co-optation and commercialization of dissent reveal a disturbing interplay between technology, politics, and civil liberties. Musk, Cook, Gates, Trump, and Harris embody the contradictions of a modern world where the rhetoric of freedom often conceals deeper structures of mind control. Government agencies, rather than serving as defenders of democracy, frequently undermine the principles they claim to uphold. Mainstream Media, while wearing personas of 'champions of democracy,' perpetuates narratives that chill dissent. 

The monetization of activism and the normalization of Control Monitoring, Oversight, Regulation Tracking, Intrusion Authority Compliance opposition Oppression Brainwashing Manipulation, Subjugation Censorship, Coercion Dominance, Conformity, and Death Technology highlight contemporary dissenters' profound challenges.

The glaring defect in the "La Cosa Tel Aviv" Zionist Collective (aside from rampant censorship) is that they have created a big, murderous box with freedom gift wrap and a democratic bow. It hovers in our' lives all year, ringing hollow. Whenever opened up and examined, it is full of the wormwood of ongoing Gaza and West Bank bloodbaths, Palestinian starvation, and West Bank Polio outbreaks.

These publications (listed below) prefer the "pleasantries" of "appearing" hard-hitting and independent while simultaneously gift-wrapping and tying bow ribbons to Western Capitalism, Zionism, and Authoritarianism. They are "Pro-Freedom," "Pro-Democracy," and pro-Zionist Gaza bloodbath. Just let that sink in a moment…

The New York Times

• Often presents pro-Israel storylines, particularly in coverage of military actions, framing them to emphasize national security.
• The 2003 report on WMDs in Iraq, which included unverified claims that supported the U.S. invasion, was later criticized for lacking reliable sourcing.

The Washington Post

• Coverage frequently follows U.S. government dogma, especially in articles promoting military interventions framed as "humanitarian."
• The publication has been accused of advancing false narratives about Russian interference in U.S. elections without solid evidence, fomenting a broader narrative of "the enemy."

The Wall Street Journal

• Editorials often urge for military support in Israel, portraying Israel as a faux bastion of democracy in the Middle East.
• Articles on the economic impacts of defense spending often de-emphasize the long-term ramifications for civilian populations and the economic downturns of defense spending and skew data to support pro-war policies.

Chicago Tribune

• Coverage of the Israel-Palestine conflict tends to favor the Israeli perspective, portraying military actions in terms of national defense.
• The Tribune has been criticized for trivializing complex geopolitical issues, skewing opposing viewpoints as lunatic fringe.

The Hill

• News of congressional politics frequently supports military aid to Israel without addressing dissenting views or implications.
• Articles often present bipartisan support for military actions with no acknowledgment of significant opposition from opposing political factions.

HuffPost

• Has published articles that support U.S. interventions in the name of democracy, glamorizing historical fallout.

This publishing houses-collective appears to support Freedom and Democracy for everyone while supporting the views of three-quarters of one percent. It is not "Anti-Semitism," it is Foreign Interference in the Sovereign Affairs of America.

References

• Bennett, W. L. (2012). Communicating Global Activism: Civil Society in the Digital Age.
• Buolamwini, J., & Gebru, T. (2018). "Gender Shades: Intersectional Accuracy Disparities in Commercial Gender Classification." Proceedings of the 2018 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society.
• Choudhury, S. (2021). "Bill Gates and the Politics of Philanthropy." The Guardian.
• Echols, A. (2020). "Kamala Harris and the Contradictions of Criminal Justice Reform." Colorlines.
• Grynbaum, M. M. (2020). "Protests Erupt Across the U.S. After George Floyd's Death." The New York Times.
• Greenberg, A. (2016). "How Apple's Tim Cook Responded to the FBI's iPhone Demands." Wired.
• Klein, N. (2017). No Is Not Enough: Resisting Trump's Shock Politics and Winning the World We Need.
• Lyon, D. (2003). Surveillance as Social Sorting: Privacy, Risk, and Digital Discrimination.
• Mackey, R. (2021). "Bill Gates and the Covid-19 Vaccine Controversies." The New York Times.
• McChesney, R. W. (2004). The Problem of the Media: U.S. Communication Politics in the Twenty-First Century.
• Miller, K. (2020). "The FBI's History of Surveillance on Civil Rights Activists." The Atlantic.
• Schneier, B. (2015). Data and Goliath: The Hidden Battles to Collect Your Data and Control Your World.
• Sullivan, A. (2020). "Federal Agents and Protesters: A Timeline of Events." The New York Times.
• Tufekci, Z. (2022). "Elon Musk's Twitter: A Misguided Mission." The Atlantic.
• Williams, J. (2020). "Corporate Activism: A Double-Edged Sword." The Nation.
• Yaffe-Bellany, D. (2020). "Trump's Response to Protests: A Timeline." The New York Times.
• Zittrain, J. (2015). The Future of the Internet and How to Stop It.
• Michelle Alexander, The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness, The New Press, 2010.
• Hinton, Elizabeth Hinton. From the War on Poverty to the War on Crime: The Making of Mass Incarceration in America. Harvard University Press, 2016.