The Authoritarian Stack... Billionaires...

5fish

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2019
Messages
16,488
Reaction score
5,684
The Billionaires have come together in Common Cause against Democracy and the people... This link shows you the control they hold over United States government... their networks.



Under the banner of "patriotic tech", this new bloc is building the infrastructure of control—clouds, AI, finance, drones, satellites—an integrated system we call the Authoritarian Stack. It is faster, ideological, and fully privatized: a regime where corporate boards, not public law, set the rules.

Our investigation shows how these firms now operate as state-like powers—writing the rules, winning the tenders, and exporting their model to Europe, where it poses a direct challenge to democratic governance.

Unlike old authoritarianism built on fear and force, this new system rules through code, capital, and infrastructure — making resistance feel architecturally impossible.

 
Last edited:

5fish

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2019
Messages
16,488
Reaction score
5,684

Thiel has declared that “freedom and democracy are no longer compatible.” Thiel has cut ties with democracy—as has fellow MAGA convert Elon Musk—even though they now occupy the inner sanctum of our government, such as it is.
 

5fish

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2019
Messages
16,488
Reaction score
5,684

Service officials insist patriotism is the driving force. However, while the Pentagon has long tapped private-sector talent through advisory roles and consulting gigs, issuing uniforms marks a largely unprecedented step in the modern era.


The four new Army Reserve Lt. Cols. are Shyam Sankar, Chief Technology Officer for Palantir; Andrew Bosworth, Chief Technology Officer of Meta; Kevin Weil, Chief Product Officer of OpenAI; and Bob McGrew, advisor at Thinking Machines Lab and former Chief Research Officer for OpenAI.
 

TomEvans

Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2025
Messages
133
Reaction score
5
The Billionaires have come together in Common Cause against Democracy and the people... This link shows you the control they hold over United States government... their networks.
Thanks to the Lincoln self-coup, commonly known as "the American Civil War; which stole national sovereignty from the voters in each state, by the government officials-- and thereby, to the Crony Capitalists under totalitarian faux-democracy... while Marx applauded like a seal:

marx.jpg

... before he squealed like a pig at the direct result.

marx2.png

Be careful what you ask for, Karl... fools rush in.

The logical solution, is to restore supreme national authority to the voters in each state, by which they actually consented to their government before the American Self-coup; but I'm sure others think that they know better.

marx revolt.png
It wasn't a revolt; the American Revolution established thirteen sovereign nations-- not a single one, like your hero President Neckbeard claimed.
The federal response, was simply a coup.
 
Last edited:

LJMYERS

Active Member
Joined
Sep 2, 2025
Messages
597
Reaction score
74
Connected to Black Rock??? Then of course we got the Marx Brothers. Karl Marx's nephew supplied the light bulbs to the Marx Brothers Studios in NYC.
 

Attachments

5fish

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2019
Messages
16,488
Reaction score
5,684
Karl Marx's nephew supplied the light bulbs to the Marx Brothers Studios in NYC
A myth .... Or lie chose your term well...

Philips Electronics: Was founded by Gerard and Anton Philips, and their grandfather, Lion Philips, was a financial supporter of Karl Marx.
 

5fish

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2019
Messages
16,488
Reaction score
5,684
It wasn't a revolt; the American Revolution established thirteen sovereign nations-- not a single one, like your hero President Neckbeard claimed.
The federal response, was simply a coup
Karl Marx was an admirer of the Lincoln... There were never 14 individual nations if you want to call them that for they lasted as long as it took you to write it. Your desire to call Lincoln's time in office a self coup is cute...
 

5fish

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2019
Messages
16,488
Reaction score
5,684
the American Civil War; which stole national sovereignty from the voters in each state, by the government officials--
Explain with some detail how Lincoln stole national sovereignty from the voters of each state. It was the forefathers each state willfully chose to join a union with the other states giving up much of any sovereignty they may have had. I think you need to read up on Social Contact theory...

 

TomEvans

Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2025
Messages
133
Reaction score
5
Explain with some detail how Lincoln stole national sovereignty from the voters of each state.
By engaging in a self-coup, turning an international government against an international union....

.... under the false pretext of a "civil war" to preserve a long-standing national union.

I don't know whether he believed this or not, but it's irrelevant to the fact of the matter.


The term "self-coup," describes a legitimate government that illegally seizes power; which it then uses to keep and/or increase its power.



This term describes the current United States federal government, which:
  1. was legitimately established as the government of an international union of 13 sovereign nations, called "the United States of America;"
  2. in which each state was a separate sovereign, that was supremely ruled by its respective electorate, or "people.“



However in the ensuing decades, this international union then grew to 34 sovereign nations, and the electorates grew from 6% of their respective populations, to 44%.

At this point, the federal government engaged in self-coup, to illegally seize power; by claiming that:

  • the union had always been a national union, as a single nation over subordinate states; and that
  • the government always a national government, whose whole "people" supremely ruled it simply by voting in elections.

The federal government then ordered Total War and totalitarian suppression over the member-states of the international union, under claim of national authority and "necessity."

And thus the federal government achieved national power over the states; and used this power to suppress the mainstream legal and historical consensus to concede and validate federal allegations-- particularly according to the outcomes of the self-coup, thereby creating a self-validating new national order.

This self-coup, thus:

  • illegally usurped supreme national sovereignty away from the respective voters of the individual states, in violation of each state's supreme international sovereignty; thereby:


  • usurping supreme national sovereignty to the government officials and offices, while leaving the electorates with only limited token franchise; which thereby:

  • created a constructive plutocratic oligarchy under rent-seeking public officials,

  • while operating under the pretense of a voluntary popular government which was legitimately established by the American Revolution,
  • while labeling and justifying this self-coup as a "civil war against insurrection" by individual states against said "national union."


The US government must be called out on this; since failure to do so, concedes its current false premise that the American Revolution established a national union over the states-- over which the people only have the power name their supreme rulers; while not consenting to their actual government by being otherwise able to alter or abolish it.



The historical facts logically imply that the Civil War was a self-coup by the U.S. government.


The argument for this implication is based on the following historical facts and logical steps:



  1. Fact: Under the Articles of Confederation, the states retained explicit sovereignty and had no federal political superior.
  2. Fact: The U.S. government, claiming a continuous "national union," used military force to prevent the withdrawal of these sovereign entities.
  3. Fact: The post-war Supreme Court, in Texas v. White (1869), issued a binding ruling that declared the Union was always perpetual and secession was never a legal right, thereby validating the federal government's use of force and establishing a new constitutional order.

The logical implication is that a government (originally of an international league) used force to illegally seize national power from within the existing structure and then retroactively justified its actions through a self-validating legal process, which fits the definition of a self-coup.



Is that enough detail?

It was the forefathers each state willfully chose to join a union with the other states giving up much of any sovereignty they may have had.
They states had no sovereignty before the Declaration of Independence, and each one had 100% sovereignty after it.
 
Last edited:

TomEvans

Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2025
Messages
133
Reaction score
5
Karl Marx was an admirer of the Lincoln...
He was also a ideologue who was too blinded by zeal to care about facts; and so he believed that the South was engaged in "armed revolt;" when in reality the Declaration of Independence did not establish the Union as political superior to any state, as Lincoln claimed.

There were never 14 individual nations if you want to call them that for they lasted as long as it took you to write it.
Let's count:

His Britannic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz.,
  1. New Hampshire,
  2. Massachusetts Bay,
  3. Rhode Island and Providence Plantations,
  4. Connecticut,
  5. New York,
  6. New Jersey,
  7. Pennsylvania,
  8. Delaware,
  9. Maryland,
  10. Virginia,
  11. North Carolina,
  12. South Carolina
  13. and Georgia,
to be free sovereign and Independent States; that he treats with them as such, and for himself his Heirs & Successors, relinquishes all claims to the Government, Propriety, and Territorial Rights of the same and every Part thereof.
And Great Britain makes 14.

And each state was supremely ruled by its respective government, prior to the Constitution not "the Union...."

while the US government never claimed that the Constitution established the Union as political superior to the state (because it didn't, but established each respective state's electorate as its respective political superior).

So Marx ended up supporting the "capitalism" that he claimed to oppose... because he was so ego-driven that he believed that all-powerful government could be made safe by a fancy dialectic.
 

Attachments

5fish

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2019
Messages
16,488
Reaction score
5,684
 
Top