Pages

Sunday, November 29, 2020

The black magic of corporate tyranny

It has taken a long time, but conservatives are finally beginning to comprehensively reject the idea that corporacracy is capitalism. And Alex Macris contemplates how corpocracy can become a form of legalized tyranny that deftly eludes the constitutional protections previously enjoyed by Americans:

If you’ve read the Parable of the Seasteader, you’ll already know that at sufficient scale the public/private distinction collapses — a private entity of sufficient size can have all the power of a public entity. It is certainly arguable that Facebook and Google have reached such size. Here, however, I want to discuss a different dilemma - government’s use of private entities to regulate freedoms it cannot directly abridge.

We’re going to look at one specific right (the right to free speech) and one specific set of Federal regulations (§ 1604.11) but the pattern I’m describing here has become ubiquitous in our country. Nowadays, almost anything government is forbidden to regulate, it can require corporations to regulate for it. The government has outsourced tyranny. Let’s see how this black magic is performed....

Government cannot regulate your expression of your viewpoint - but corporations can.

Most people understand that the First Amendment does not apply to private actors on their private property. A person or corporation can choose to allow free speech in their home or business, or can choose to regulate free speech, even viewpoints, as they deem. This “exception” to the First Amendment has been the case since the foundation of Anglo-American law, and it is absolutely necessary to protect the rights of property owners.

For instance, if I am running a bicycle shop, I am absolutely permitted to prevent my employees from putting up posters that say “bicycles suck” or telling my customers to “buy a scooter.” Likewise, if I am running a video game news site, I am absolutely permitted to tell my journalists not to write about the beauties of Sistine Chapel instead. And if I invite you to my home to binge-watch Babylon 5, and you express the offensive viewpoint that Star Trek is better, I am altogether within my rights to make you leave.

Admittedly, there have been occasional exceptions to this rule under the so-called state actor doctrine. Most notably, the US Supreme Court ruled in Marsh v Alabama (1946) that the First Amendment fully applied to expressive activities on the company-owned sidewalks and streets of a company-owned town. The precedent of Marsh v Alabama was expanded in Amalgamated Food Employees Union v Logan Valley Plaza (1968) then overturned in Hudgens v NLRB (1976). Since Hudgens, the state actor doctrine has waned in importance, despite numerous conservative efforts to sue online platforms.

We will put aside the so-far toothless Section 230 for a discussion another day. In general, private corporations can regulate the expression of viewpoints, even though government cannot, and that’s the law.

In Fact, Private Abridgment Is Often Required!

What most people don’t understand, however, is that private actor aren’t just free to regulate viewpoint. They are required by government to regulate viewpoints. What a paradox! Government can require a private actor to undertake regulation over speech that the government couldn’t itself take? Yes!

There is more, there is a lot more, there for the reading

63 comments:

  1. Oh the Libertarian eye twitching! The weeping and gnashing of teeth after reading this.

    ReplyDelete
  2. All them spinning bowties gonna setbupna stiff breeze.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Private businesses are uniformly enforcing governmental mask tyranny. And will likely enforce a mandatory vaccination designation. This must be stopped.

    ReplyDelete
  4. In addition to what is outlined at the link, if you're so foolhardy as to exercise your right to free speech in a Government-owned public place, there is nothing in the First Amendment preventing the Government from exercising its discretion not to prosecute the non-uniformed thugs who have beaten the stuffing out of you.

    In short, you're free to say whatever you like - privately, in your own home.

    ReplyDelete
  5. It will get good when they extrapolate this reasoning upward to NGOs, the international monetary system, and the incentive protocols that inevitably lead to a defacto One World Government. I doubt it will be in our lifetime though.

    ReplyDelete
  6. How dare you attack capitalism! Because of big private corporations i was able to get a nice buick to get bj's in!

    ReplyDelete
  7. TLDR; from the article's conclusion:
    "One of the most astute points that F.A. Hayek makes in The Road to Serfdom is that socialism and fascism lead to the same place (serfdom) by different means. In socialism, the government controls your labor and capital directly. In fascism, the government controls the corporations, and the corporations control your labor and capital.

    What I’ve described above is similar, but broader in scope. The government controls the corporations, and the corporations control you."

    But the article is worth reading for the examples stated. It's not just free speech. He mentions the 2nd Amendment. But I thought of another example: toilets.

    I want to buy a toilet that still has 2 gallons per flush. But federal regulations outlaw it. The government can't directly regulate the type of toilet I buy. After all, I'm free. But if no one makes the toilet I want, I'm SOL.

    Another one: CAFE standards. The government can't tell me what kind of car I can buy! I'm free! I'm an American! But through extending fuel economy standards to trucks that were previously grandfathered (thanks Obama administration), I now have to buy an aluminum F150. It used to be made of steel.

    One more: fire standards for bedding. The government can't tell me what kind of bed I can buy, but they can ensure I can't buy a bed that doesn't have a ton of chemicals dumped on it. See the federal mandate is for an open flame on bedding for a period of 30 minutes!
    https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/pdfs/blk_media_mattsets.pdf

    On page 7 of that document, government assures us that there are flame retardant chemicals available that won't cause lasting harm. Trust them. They've done the studies.

    Pages upon pages - too many to read - of regulations that interfere with our lives in ways we don't begin to fathom. This isn't freedom. It's a veiled tyranny.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Its the everyday minor inconveniences that most people cannot seem to connect to soft tyranny. Not being able to buy a superior toilet or car because of government regulations is as bright of a red flag as can be, but only to those of us who choose to be more human than animal.

      Delete
    2. I sure would have thought toilets to have been the red line. Alas, it was light bulbs. GD boomers still should gave fought for the toilets, though.

      Delete
  8. Rule by regulation: see toilets, shower heads, "toxic substances", cars, food "safety" , et al.

    ReplyDelete
  9. That's what government usually does these days: if they aren't allowed to do it, they outsource it to a corporation. Like what they do with intelligence gathering or clandestine military operations.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Between Marsh V. Alabama style cases curtailing unilateral corporate action and SPLC style lawfare designed to combat shady attempts by government officials to outsource tyranny, you'd think there would be enough judicial precedent to work with.

    Have modern lawyers simply forgotten how to present such cases?

    At the end of the day these all trace back to government regulations, which make the government ultimately responsible. It's a question of connecting the dots and getting it before the current supreme court under the Slants precedent.

    Or you can lawfare against the corporations themselves to create case law that makes them more frightened of those suits than obscure reaching via regulations twisted beyond their purpose.

    For instance, where are the defamation suits for the withdrawal of payment processing?

    Every instance where I've received full details of "de-banking" it's traced back to some nameless bureaucrat at MasterCard or Visa slipping the wronged party into the MATCH database, which is only allowed for high-risk/criminal activity such as fraud or terrorism. Them choosing to call "hate speech" criminal activity by slipping wrong-speakers onto the MATCH database is defamation even under narrow US guidelines, and it's just a question of doing the litigative digging necessary to find out which party is responsible.

    Once again this calls for an agency like the ACLU, but specifically aimed at this form of corporate overreach. Divert funding from one of those stupid bow-tied think tanks and it would be more than enough.

    ReplyDelete
  11. swiftfoxmark2 wrote:That's what government usually does these days: if they aren't allowed to do it, they outsource it to a corporation. Like what they do with intelligence gathering or clandestine military operations.

    Or, in the alternative, they outsource it to a foreign government. You spy on my citizens and share what you find with me, and I'll do the same for you.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Chris Ritchie wrote:The government can't tell me what kind of car I can buy! I'm free! I'm an American!

    If you have the money and can find enough people able and willing to design, fabricate and assemble parts, you can buy any mechanical contraption your heart desires and keep and use it on your land. Just don't expect to be allowed to operate it on a public thoroughfare.

    ReplyDelete
  13. It isn’t a problem exactly of the public/private distinction. Because we on the right have long been comfortable railing against private institutions that wield power against our interests. Unions, for one. Universities. NGOs, alms well. Not that we’ve been entirely successful restraining them.

    The Corporate State has long received a pass from mainstream conservatism on account of falling on the near side of the socialism/capitalism dialectic. And because mainstream conservatism is slow to move and stupid.

    I might add that 70 or so years ago when conservatism set itself up corporatocrats were already Satanic enough. See for instance the Rockefeller foundation. However, I don’t think they were all-in for destruction of Western civilization. You could set up a Robert McNamarra to run a cookie factory and he would seek to increase cookie profits, not inject cookies with poison to kill white children because 49% of white children grow into white men.
    Point being, if at least you could count on corporatocracy to maximize profits and look after themselves more than the state did back then (whether or not you actually could), you can’t now.

    I remember reading Albert J. Nock the Old-Timey libertarian (not in the crazy/autistic/gay sense) talk about visiting Titans of Industru to help raise money to publish works defending private enterprise. Turns out they didn’t care. Might as well have been peddling books about daffodils.

    ReplyDelete
  14. @9. One of the reasons that tiny homes are taking off in NZ is that they are classed as caravans/mobile homes and therefore you don't need to get planning permission to do anything. Planning permission can take weeks to months -- even for small things like insulating your garage. I know of million dollar sections with a tiny house parked on them. Putting a tiny house there is cheaper and faster and does the job the owners want -- warm shelter on land with a view.

    @12 For instance, where are the defamation suits for the withdrawal of payment processing?

    Every instance where I've received full details of "de-banking" it's traced back to some nameless bureaucrat at MasterCard or Visa slipping the wronged party into the MATCH database, which is only allowed for high-risk/criminal activity such as fraud or terrorism. Them choosing to call "hate speech" criminal activity by slipping wrong-speakers onto the MATCH database is defamation even under narrow US guidelines, and it's just a question of doing the litigative digging necessary to find out which party is responsible.

    Once again this calls for an agency like the ACLU, but specifically aimed at this form of corporate overreach. Divert funding from one of those stupid bow-tied think tanks and it would be more than enough.


    Very interesting that one can get netflix or worse on the visa but not sites that offend the powers that be: from Gab on. This is going to drive people to use bitcoin for international ordering -- undercutting the mastercard/visa/paypal consortium.


    @13. This is why the USA tolerates NZ. We are part of the five eyes, and we consider the USA a foreign power.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Has anyone looked into leveraging "disparate impact" against the government whenever one of these regulations is used as a hook to justify suppression of enumerated rights?

    You betcha if one of these regulations were used as an excuse to say "we must exclude black people" it would be immediately struck down on such a precedent.

    Last I checked the bill of rights was higher in legal precedence than the civil rights act of 1964.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Lol. Whites and Asians should sue IRS over disparate racial impact of the progressive income tax.

      Delete
  16. @15

    Universities have actually been restrained quite well of late due to ties with government.
    I don't see why a similar formula could not be used to assert banks and other major corps are not quasi-governmental by having massive government contracts, guarantees, or dangling threats of fines for failing to crotch-stomp sections of the bill of rights as a proxy.

    I could see multiple cases being required to peel the onion of responsibility and end the bad behavior.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I think I saw it on here first: Capitalism is a straw man Marx set up to make his Communism look good. Marx's communism is a disaster. So is his capitalism.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @Ominous Cowherd- Of course, capitalism as described by Marx appears nowhere in nature. It is in fact a reductio as abdurdum of certain Jewish stereotypes. Because Marx himself was anti-semitic.

      Delete
  18. I think that we can now safely say that after 200 years the corporation, as a legal business entity, has grown (perhaps "mutated" is a better word) beyond a purely for-profit endeavor seeking to maximize profit and shareholder value while producing better goods and services with ever greater efficiency to a power-hungry monster that engages in ruthless rent seeking from the State to preserve the perquisites of its executive class at any cost.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Private businesses are uniformly enforcing governmental mask tyranny. And will likely enforce a mandatory vaccination designation. This must be stopped.

    QFT

    If we don't stop sino joe and kabala it's going to get ugly...quick.
    I will be leaving commiefonia and letting the coup coup plotters have their shithole if come Jan 22 pedo joe is installed.

    ReplyDelete
  20. The socialist capitalist binary is materialist modern falsehood. One makes the state god and public institutions with out sin. The other makes money god and corporations free of original sin.

    The Christian and Western answer is sin. Each can be evil or good, depending on virtue of the composition of the people in it.

    That would require having virtue, and worshiping something incorporial.

    ReplyDelete
  21. @21

    Again: a lawfare NGO that's explicitly addressing conservative issues like this should have been running as of decades ago.

    The concept of "business licensing" is itself a capricious and egregious 4th amendment violation, and if you ascribe to corporate personhood, a habeas corpus violation. Having to ask the government "permission" to engage in lawful commerce without any probable cause is just as fascistic as having to ask government "permission" to move from place to place.

    Capricious covid lockdown enforcement by people like Whitmer and Newsom are a perfect vehicle for attacking this, but would require serious constitutional law muscle to pursue, and there seems to be no right-wing aclu available to pounce on it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Isn't that what Tom's a Fit-un does at "Judicial watch"?

      Delete
  22. In short, you're free to say whatever you like - privately, in your own home.

    As long as your phone or computer or fridge or vacuum doesn't pick it up and forward it to MiniLuv.

    ReplyDelete
  23. OT: finally some team rebellion is starting to happen in America instead all the retail therapy of buying guns.

    Truckers are starting to strike major blue cities in protest of the election fraud and people voting against them by voting for Biden.

    Democrats want to end trucking? OK get your deliveries by tesla and train

    https://youtu.be/IPPez2qCBo0

    ReplyDelete
  24. weka wrote:This is why the USA tolerates NZ. We are part of the five eyes, and we consider the USA a foreign power.

    I know this. I remember the occasional bit of fuss over the Waihopai facility. In those days, I guess, the media was marginally less execrable than now.

    ReplyDelete
  25. "You betcha if one of these regulations were used as an excuse to say "we must exclude black people" it would be immediately struck down on such a precedent."

    Haha, naive. Such hooks are used near ubiquitously. They don't SAY that's what they're doing, they just do it.

    ReplyDelete
  26. "Marx's communism is a disaster. So is his capitalism.".

    It really is as simple as envy vs greed. They both suck.

    ReplyDelete
  27. crescent wrench wrote:The concept of "business licensing" is itself a capricious and egregious 4th amendment violation...

    I find the very concept puzzling. What exactly can you not (legally) do without a business licence? Are the police going to come and lock you out of your house or throw you in jail if you try as an unlicensed person to sell widgets from your garage?

    (Yes, I know I can look it up, and it probably varies by state and local government. My question is half rhetorical. My country doesn't require business licences, unless you intend to go into a regulated profession - in which case it is the person who is licensed, not the firm - or a regulated trade, like sale of prepared food or of liquor.)

    ReplyDelete
  28. Corporations in their modern form, are state sponsored necromancy.

    ReplyDelete
  29. @20 No. The corporation has always been a rent seeking monster. But there used to be many fewer of them. Corporations are the financial equivalent of crack cocaine and crystal meth, as opposed to the healthy meat and potatoes of work hard, save, accumulate, and pass it along to your heirs.

    ReplyDelete
  30. I think the problem is that Congress has bowed to the giant corporations so long they know they are immune to any curbs on their behavior---and they have hired Ivy grads with the correct connections so long that their management are all WASPs who have been generationally trained to knuckle under to Jews (and, of course, a few people with darker skin tone hired to be at public meetings and on TV and otherwise not do much).

    Hudsons Bay and East India Corporations were also evil, and laws unto themselves. Hopefully government of some kind reigns them in before they start forming their company armies.

    ReplyDelete
  31. crescent wrench wrote:Between Marsh V. Alabama style cases curtailing unilateral corporate action and SPLC style lawfare designed to combat shady attempts by government officials to outsource tyranny, you'd think there would be enough judicial precedent to work with.

    Have modern lawyers simply forgotten how to present such cases?



    The courts are too corrupt now. Leaving aside the political cases, a good example is about 20 years ago. Walmart in Michigan was famous for telling employees to clock off and then finish their shelving tasks before they went home, it was organized by management.

    The resulting court case, the circuit (state senior trial court) judge held a hearing and determined their could be no class action suit taking into account the totality of the situation. So the cases went way because no lawyer can run a full suit for a single set of damages of only a few thousand.

    And the judge's brother got a mysterious consulting contract to do nothing.

    And the court of appeals was fine with that.

    And Walmart had an issue with a new store in central Michigan, and their hired the township supervisor's* brother to design the landscaping that was already designed.

    (*supervisor=local title for the township mayor).

    And the anti walmart crowd went to the state police and FBI, but it was fine with them.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Corporations are like bitches. All the rights without the burden of responsibilities. If civilization is to continue, both must be brought to heal.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Funny of FB and Google are always the examples but they are not economic examples. They are globalist/NSA/old family blood examples... Haha!

    ReplyDelete
  34. By the way, all you libertarians are cowards, you just outsource your tyranny so you don't get your hands dirty or fuck with your property values, or, as with the stocks in your portfolio, take responsibility for all the damage they create. The corporation is the perfect tool for the libertarian coward.
    These layers of legal fictions like sub-corps are also what gives cover to the Epstiens of the world.

    ReplyDelete
  35. "Truckers are starting to strike major blue cities in protest of the election fraud and people voting against them by voting for Biden."

    Were I a truck driver I'd be striking "major blue cities" for no other reason than because you can never know in advance when a "mostly peaceful protest" will break-out, potentially trapping you inside a literal kill-zone with feral semi-humans.

    ReplyDelete
  36. In his most recent testimony before the senate Zuckerberg testified that running Facebook was less like running a company and more like running a government. Well if we take him at his word there is nothing in the constitution that limits the power or behavior of that particular government

    ReplyDelete
  37. @27: "Democrats want to end trucking? OK get your deliveries by tesla and train "
    Democrats don't like trains: where we see train tracks they see nature walkways. As for Tesla, we will see more youtube video of tracker-trailer accidents.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Vantandor Nought wrote: I find the very concept puzzling. What exactly can you not (legally) do without a business licence? Are the police going to come and lock you out of your house or throw you in jail if you try as an unlicensed person to sell widgets from your garage?

    Generally speaking no. They will use things like fines which are non criminal penalties progressively escalating to the point of an absurd a of money you "owe." If/when you can't/won't pay a lien may be placed on your property accounts seized/frozen. You're then locked out of financial transactions. They may try to then remove you from your property and if you refuse jail, or kill you if you resist.

    Somebody who keeps a low enough profile with the right type of business could conceivably stay under the radar, but their bandwidth of business opportunities is impeded drastically.

    ReplyDelete
  39. I've passed this link along to the esteemed libertardian Robert Wenzel who the Economic Policy Journal, and have asked for his take on this fine piece.

    I sympathize with many libertarian points, but the reality is most people are too stupid for freedom. The libertardians are perfectly okay with a corporation destroying inalienable rights though respect for private property works both ways.

    This goes back to the libertardian blindspot where 'culture' matters, but they are stuck in leftist cloud of equality.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. When I used to comment there, I would inevitably beat my head against a wall of libertarian obtuseness over the distinction between authority and authoritarianism, freedom and license, and a host of others central to free markets but usually sidelined and destroyed by capitalism. It was heavy-going and I eventually gave up. Wenzel himself is a cultural Catholic and on the "thin" side of libertarianism, accepting it as a framework for getting along rather than the substance of culture itself as the left libs would have it.

      But I finally gave up on any branch of libertarianism and admitted I have always been a conservative in some form. A kinder, gentler one, maybe. Lately, however, I my inner Conquistador has been telling me that those Aztecs really were NOT such nice folk.

      Delete
  40. Take the whites killing themselves with oppoids sold by a single family through the cover of the FDA and the corporate fiction. Just commerce with rational fungible adults. Don't smoke weed though. That doesn't have gate keeper approval. A pox on them all.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Capitalism/Free Market is masculine.
    Corporation is feminine.

    ReplyDelete
  42. 38/40, corporations are like feminists then, they want the advantages of both, disadvantages of neither. and yes, cuckertarians are exposed as feckless autists.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Private businesses are uniformly enforcing governmental mask tyranny. And will likely enforce a mandatory vaccination designation. This must be stopped.

    You beat me to the punch.

    The government is the one mandating the mask but it is the corporate run chains that are enforcing its implementation. It fears the zeitgeist and goes along with it, even upholds it, to prevent itself from being destroyed by it in response.

    Go to a corporate grocery store. Listen to the reminders every 5 minutes. "We are in a pandemic. Do your part citizen." When confronted for breaking the rule, store managers and employers will tell you, "I'm just the middle man" when you push back and tell them that they are the face of tyranny. It rattles them. "I'm just following orders" does not cut it and deep down they know it. If the argument didn't work for post WW2 Germany, will it work for them when the reckoning comes?

    ReplyDelete
  44. You know, corporations are a creation of government legislation. The state and federal governments could, if they wished, abolish corporations altogether and put their property into the hands of a receiver to be sold to actual people. Perhaps the corporate honchos should read some history. The french king abolished the Templers in a few weeks and seized everything they owned. In the 1530s Henry VIII abolished the massive English Church Corporations and seized all of their property with little difficulty. Here in the USA, the government was kinder to the corporate monopolies like Standard Oil and AT&T, but they were nevertheless broken up. It is past time to do deal with the arrogant upstarts who run our present day monopoly corporations.

    ReplyDelete
  45. By the way. Do your part. STOP SHOPPING AT WALMART! Never go to Home Depot or Lowes. Go first to a proprietor owned hardware store, or if none is available, to a TruValue or Ace Hardware store. Likewise for everything else you buy. Focus on the most local supplier. We have only ourselves to blame if we keep feeding the beast.

    ReplyDelete
  46. We're all tired of libtards babbling that "private" corporations can censor who they please, ignoring that corporations are legal fictions created by government in order to receive legal, tax, and other benefits. Private corporation is an oxymoron.

    ReplyDelete
  47. "Don't smoke weed though. That doesn't have gate keeper approval."

    Cuz ganja is from God.


    HOW TO BREAK THE MULTINATIONAL CORPORATE MONOPOLY, ON PHARMA DRUGS, BIOFUEL FOR AUTOMOBILES , HUMAN NUTRITION, CLOTHING , CURING ALCOHOL DRUG ADDICTIONS , MAGIC IN THC OF CANNABIS , HEMP- CAPT AJIT VADAKAYIL


    http://ajitvadakayil.blogspot.com/2012/10/say-no-to-plastics-human-suffering-and.html

    ReplyDelete
  48. Essentially, the argument is being made that I have no right to rip you to shreads or kill you, because the law says that would be a crime. But my pit bull can do the job in a few seconds, even if I am not around to direct the attack in person. Then, all I have to say is that my pit bull dog (named Google) is a nice doggie and wouldn't hurt anyone. (You can even take a biscuit out of his mouth.) I don't know and I was not there, but the deceased must have attacked my dog in some way, or used the N-word (yes, he bees black), or did something to trigger the dog. He does not do that to everyone else, every day, everywhere.

    ReplyDelete
  49. The threat is not jackboots kicking in doors, or cattle cars set to drop of dissenters by the thousands at the gulag.

    It's the Karen-stasi reporting you to the manager and preventing you from buying the groceries, boarding the plane, renewing, your permission slip (license) to work, drive, fish, own a dog etc.

    The boot doesn't belong to the brownshirts it belongs to your favorite corporate retailers, and service industries. Carrots so effective, sticks are rarely needed. At this point most are so dependent on large centralized systems (even the Amish I sometimes work along side) it's almost impossible to totally insulate yourself from the Borg. Even so it shouldn't stop anyone from attempting to cut off as many unnecessary corporate chains as possible.

    ReplyDelete
  50. There's a hefty body of 4th amendment law that considers search and seizure without a warrant performed by private citizens, when done at the behest of law enforcement, to be equivalent to law enforcement doing it themselves, and so still invalidates the evidence.

    It would seem to me that government requiring private actors to enforce anti-speech or other unconstitutional restrictions is no different. Perhaps that's a path to overturning these laws in the future.

    ReplyDelete
  51. @53 You mean Ace, the place with the helpful hardware.... being of indeterminate gender? No thanks. Agree with the general point, but Ace is pozzed.

    ReplyDelete
  52. What I’ve described above is similar, but broader in scope. The government controls the corporations, and the corporations control you.

    I think more of what we are seeing is not governments controlling corporations, but corporations controlling governments. The Great Reset seems to play along these lines - that the corporations are seeking to become government.

    Forget about company towns, that's so yesteryear. How about company countries? But even so, more like a world order where one group of people controls finance, commerce, and industry.

    At what point do they seize being a private business and have instead become the government?

    ReplyDelete
  53. I read it as " black magic of corporate trannys" haha

    I wonder if the two words are so similar for a reason. I can imagine that there's a lot of wannabe tranny tyrants out there today

    ReplyDelete
  54. The original article isn't there anymore, did something happen to the author's page?

    ReplyDelete

Rules of the blog