The authoritarian regimes of the past century have all followed a generally predictable pattern of events. Almost every totalitarian government has been inspired by the ideologies of the political left: an increasingly bigger government, socialist control of resources, the melding of bureaucracy and corporate entities, demands for "social justice," collectivist propaganda, the abandonment of individual merit for the sake of the state and the "greater good," Marxism — not just economic but also cultural — and finally, the adoption of futurism.

In my view, futurism is the key to all modern authoritarianism. It's a philosophy that has been present at the birth of nearly every major despotic government in recent memory and is the root of leftist ideology today. Futurists argue that history is, for the most part, dead weight. They believe that every notion of heritage, past lessons, and our forefathers' ideals and principles is irrelevant.

Futurists think nothing is sacred and that all new ideas are superior to all old ideas. Therefore, they claim that any society that clings to (or conserves) the old ways needs to be dismantled because it is holding humanity back from progress. In other words, anyone promoting or defending traditional norms must be silenced in the name of "progress."

I suspect most people reading this at least intuitively understand the monstrous nature of this belief system. Futurism's very structure is based on a lie — the idea that all change is good and that any oppression committed in the name of change is justified.

The process of tyranny

In this process of tyranny, there are usually stages of escalation. The first stage is the exploitation of existing social divisions to create an enemy that the rest of the population can be convinced to rally against. This is not to say these divisions aren't legitimate; they often are. In our era of "multiculturalism," globalists have been inviting many groups of people into the West that are simply incompatible with Western values and morals. They will not assimilate, and they will only cause conflict, which is the very reason why political puppets continue to keep our borders open.

These divisions can be exploited to create conflict and chaos, which governments then use as an excuse to crack down on their political enemies. In the U.S. and EU, it's conservatives, the very people who are trying to defend the historical ideals of our respective nations, who are being labeled public enemy #1. We are the ever-present bogeyman of the 21st century.

It's not only because we defend the heritage and principles that helped to create the greatest civilization in the history of the world (Western civilization). It's also because because we keep talking about uncomfortable truths.

The futurists rely on disinformation to spread their utopian philosophy, and they can only continue to survive by silencing all other contrary ideas. All futurist regimes eventually turn to mass censorship to function. They cannot stand in the light of truth, so they must keep the people in perpetual darkness.

Slow at first, then all at once …

Many readers will argue that we've been in this stage for decades now. I would argue that we haven't seen anything yet. We've only been living under covert censorship. The pandemic lockdown effort was the moment of the shift when Democrats and Big Tech companies began to openly demand that counter-information be suppressed, though most of that censorship was still under the table.

Meta CEO and Facebook creator Mark Zuckerberg recently admitted that the Biden administration pressured Facebook behind the scenes to censor COVID-19 information that was contrary to the government narrative. This is highly unconstitutional and criminal. Biden and Harris should be up on impeachment charges, and in my view, anyone involved should face prison time. Will that happen? Probably not.

This brand of censorship is insidious, but rigging algorithms to hide search results and booting people off of social media are not exactly the same as creating laws to intimidate or punish those who speak out. That's the stage we're entering right now; the open mass censorship era has arrived.

In Brazil, leftist authoritarians have shut down Elon Musk's X (formerly Twitter) because Musk has refused to institute their censorship model on his social media site. To Musk's credit, he has been willing to lose Brazil's business and stand by his principles.

The developments in the U.K. are another blatant example, with the government now trying to hunt down and imprison people for the most minor of actions. A British teen was recently put in prison for two years for merely flying a British flag near a mosque. Anyone who stands against multiculturalism (and futurism) risks being arrested and thrown in a cage.

U.K. authorities have suggested that Elon Musk should be charged and that other Americans should be extradited for promoting conservative values on immigration or arguing in favor of British protests. We're just pointing out that there are only two ways this can go: Either the British people rebel and violently overthrow the globalist puppets in their own government, or they will become slaves living in fear within their own country.

It sounds truly insane, all of this drama over basic free speech rights, but this is the world we are now approaching, and leftists are happily supporting the transition.

Mass censorship is a path to inevitable rebellion

rootstocks/Getty Images

Musk has stated that he believes X will eventually be shut down in the U.S. should Kamala Harris gain the presidency in the November election, and I'm inclined to agree. Look at what the establishment did to social media newcomer Parler when the company started gaining traction; the elites simply shut down Parler's ability to function efficiently on the web and grow its user base. Under a Harris regime, they will feel encouraged to go even farther.

The rhetoric of the Democrats is quite clear. They are anti-free-speech, and they view certain ideas as a threat to their society.

For example, the far-left New York Times published an article this week that gave credence to mass censorship, including the Brazilian government's decision on X. The article highlighted the positives of giving Brazilian Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes sweeping online censorship powers and described this move as an "effective solution to the vexing problem of right-wing threats to Democracy."

The Times article falls just short of institutionally endorsing the censorship of X and even asks if Brazil perhaps "went too far" (obviously, the answer is yes), but at the same time, it suggests that this trend is a "new normal" that Big Tech companies will have to navigate. And the article insinuates that if Musk wants to counter government censorship demands, he should do it through civil courts instead of defying such tyranny directly. In other words, it argues Musk doesn't have the right to stand against them.

A rebellion doesn't need to ask for permission to rebel

The New York Times also had much to say about the problem of freedom and the U.S. Constitution in an article titled "The Constitution Is Sacred. Is It Also Dangerous?" The Times again tries to tie the events of January 6 to the necessity of censorship, promoting the false narrative of an attempted "insurrection" in which no one was armed and no one was killed except one of the conservative protesters.

The Times asserts that the danger of the Constitution is that it gives the public the freedom to vote for a person like Trump, an act that the Times claims allows for the document's own destruction.

The true irony is that Trump's popularity would be nonexistent if it weren't for the political left's constant attempts to institute a socialist dystopia that erases the Bill of Rights. Nothing happens in a vacuum, and these people never take responsibility for their behavior. They spent three years ignoring the Constitution in the name of medical authoritarianism over a virus with a tiny median infection fatality rate of only 0.23%. Then they started gaslighting the public about how conservatives are a threat to democracy.

I argue this is not the new normal; it's a recipe for war in the U.S., Europe, or both. Globalists know full well that rebellion is coming, but I don't think most leftists truly appreciate how at risk they are if they continue down this path. It's not going to go well for them.

Rebellion is always on the minds of the elites. In a way, they want it, but they want it in small doses that are easy to manage. They want a "terrorist" enemy they can use to frighten the public into supporting martial law, but what happens if too many in the public join that rebellion?

What globalists and leftists are truly afraid of is a large-scale rebellion that they can't control — the kind of rebellion that could end with the elites on the chopping block. They will do anything to avoid widespread revolution, so they're willing to risk open mass censorship today. They know what is coming, and they're moving to mitigate the spread of anti-globalist views as much as possible before things get out of hand. I believe it's too late for them.

A version of this piece originally appeared in alt-market.us.