TimoMalum.com

David Icke Describes The Two Types Of People Who Allow Fascism To Happen.

"We must not just talk about freedom. We must live it, and live it by ceasing to cooperate with that which is by the hour now destroying freedom. There are three types of people. Two of the groups are responsible for every tyranny in history. And the third group is responsible for ending every tyranny in history. Group number one: those who mindlessly accept anything authority tells them without question, and they will just do whatever they're told and think whatever they're told to think. Then there is group number two: those who don't want to do what authority tells them, but they're terrified of not doing so because they fear the consequences. Those two groups together have been responsible for every tyranny in history.

Fascism is not imposed by fascists; there's never enough of them. Fascism is imposed by the population acquiescing to fascism. See Nazi Germany. So if anyone says "well what can we do?". Well you can get off your bloody ass, stiffen your backbone, and stop being a bloody wimp - there's a start! Look your children and grandchildren in the eye and tell them what you were doing when fascism was introduced. "Oh I was keeping my mouth shut". And then there's group number three, that has ended every tyranny in history, the true renegades of this human family. Those who see they're being lied to, who see where this is going, and refuse to cooperate. The people who understand the most powerful word in the English language: no, no, no. English language or any other language: no, no, no. Not doing it. Not cooperating.

So, what can we do? There is everything we can do. Stop giving your power to authority, and then you'll see authority never had power in the first place because it was always yours."

--David Icke

[see more at DavidIcke.com]

Nietzsche Explains The Herd Mentality.

"All the sick and sickly instinctively strive after a herd organization as a means of shaking off their dull displeasure and feeling of weakness...for one should not overlook this fact: the strong are as naturally inclined to separate as the weak are to congregate." -- Friedrich Nietzsche, On The Genealogy Of Morality, 1887.

Why I No Longer Use Vivaldi Browser.

I was an early adopter of the Vivaldi web browser. I must have been one of the first users in the United States because whenever I would mention it, the usual response was, "I've never heard of it". Fast forward a few years and it's become one of the fastest growing browsers available, and for good reasons: it's full of features, it's privacy-focused (although it's not the most private one out there), it looks good, and it's highly customizable. It has so many features, in fact, that you'll probably never use most of them, and that's one reason I began to lose enthusiasm. I felt  it was becoming too large and complicated, and a few bugs crept in that seemed to take forever to find and fix. But I still liked it, for the most part, especially the "notes" feature and its bookmark system.

So what happened? Why did I dump Vivaldi?

It came down to free speech, or rather, Vivaldi's unwillingness to defend free speech. This isn't specifically a browser issue but is instead an issue with Vivaldi Technologies, the company that makes the browser. A few years ago, they decided to self-host their own instance of Mastodon social media, which they named "Vivaldi Social". (Mastodon is the name of a linked network of independent social media sites where users can see and comment on posts from the other independently-run instances of Mastodon. It's sort of like what you'd have if Facebook, Twitter, and MeWe all decided to adopt similar user interfaces and allowed each other's members to talk to each other without having to join every site. It's a way for small-time operators to be a part of something much bigger.) In 2023 Vivaldi said, "With our server capabilities, plenty of know-how and enthusiasm in the team, it was easy yet challenging to host our own server to accommodate people migrating to Mastodon. With Vivaldi Social, we want to offer ‘the good old days of the Internet’, where the sense of community is a lot stronger with people." They had good intentions, it seems, but things aren't going very well. Censorship is out of control on Vivaldi Social, as it is on most instances of Mastodon.

Over the years Mastodon has gotten a reputation for being an echo chamber for "woke" radical leftists. Although each instance of Mastodon can have its own focus, most of them seem to attract people with the same ideologies, and the moderators make sure anyone with dissenting opinions gets silenced or kicked out. In theory there could be Mastodon instances that welcome libertarians, conservatives, or anarchists, but I haven't found one yet. So far, all that I've used have adopted the same "communitarian" hive-mind agenda, and no speech that strays from that agenda is tolerated.

I had hoped Vivaldi Social would be different, since it comes from a privacy-focused company that's "fighting for a better web".

My hope was short-lived.

Within just a couple of days of joining and posting on Vivaldi Social, I began to get notices from the moderators that my posts were violating their community guidelines, even though I was careful to follow the rules and actually self-censored to a degree to keep from getting kicked out. I didn't post anything I couldn't back up with sources, but I soon found out that my sources didn't matter to the moderators. Yet people with views contrary to mine seemed to be able to post whatever they wanted with no data to support their claims. When I politely challenged those claims and asked for source material, the moderators penalized me for that too. Simply asking questions got me flagged for posting "false or misleading information".

Here are a few examples of the authoritarian insanity I (briefly) dealt with on Vivaldi Social:

My first strike was received on April 21, 2025. Vivaldi Social's moderators claimed I had posted "intentionally false or misleading information", yet the "proof" they provided shows all I did was ask a question. Another user had posted a statement that COVID was still a serious threat that was killing people. She made the claim, so the burden of proof falls on her. I asked for that proof. Vivaldi Social wouldn't allow me to ask that question, so my post was removed. The original post that I challenged stayed up. I appealed. The appeal was rejected. 

Next, I posted a link to an article I had written on this blog. The article, entitled "Protect The Children", featured a graphic of a baby surrounded by vaccine syringes and a statement by Dr Sherri Tenpenny on how parents have a responsibility to do their own research to protect their children. No claims were made by either myself or Dr Tenpenny that vaccines are dangerous. And yet the post was tagged as "intentionally false or misleading information". I got another strike. I appealed. The appeal was rejected. 

Not long after the second strike, I got a third one, once again for asking a question. A user had made a false claim that face masks protect us from diseases, so I challenged the claim. I asked for "credible science to prove your point about masks", adding that I could provide several studies that prove she's wrong. The moderators didn't say how my question violated any policies or community guidelines, but they used it as an excuse to limit my account so that virtually no one could see it anymore. I appealed. The appeal was rejected.

Five days later, I replied to a post that criticized Donald Trump by claiming he was pushing authoritarianism and attacking free speech. I didn't disagree with the claim, but I wanted to know why the person making the post never criticized Joe Biden, who was one of the most authoritarian, pro-censorship presidents in modern history. Once again for asking a question, I got a strike for posting "intentionally or misleading information". I appealed. The appeal was rejected.  At this point I'm wondering what social media is all about if we're not allowed to ask questions and have conversations.

Around this same time I got a comment from a user who couldn't say anything intelligent and instead resorted to cheap insults and vulgar language. I didn't file a complaint, because I thought that would be petty and vindictive. The comment stayed up. And to be fair, the person making the comment was registered on a different Mastodon instance, but it shows you can be vulgar without penalty in the woke world of the radical left.

Finally, on May 18 my account was permanently suspended.  Vivaldi Social's moderators claimed I had posted material that violated their community guidelines on "harassment, dogpiling, or doxxing of other users" and sharing "intentionally false or misleading information". For the first charge, I had replied to another user's post, saying "Mastodon isn't a social media site. It's a thought-control site. Their moderators seek to impose their personal agendas upon the rest of the world." I'm guessing that by now the moderators were watching everything I was posting and looking for excuses to get rid of me, and by now I knew I was on the way out so I really didn't care if I offended them or not. For the second charge, I was once again given a strike for asking a question. I asked, "May I respectfully ask why the left never speaks out about the crimes of Democratic Party politicians? Why was nothing said when Biden tried to impose censorship across social media? Why was nothing said when Obama made it legal for the US government to use propaganda against citizens? I'm really curious." Even though my questions were based on factual events that I could easily prove, the moderators apparently decided that protecting the hive was more important than discussing reality. They kicked me out. I did not appeal, because I knew that it was pointless.

Although I like the Vivaldi browser, I cannot continue to use or support it. It's my firm belief that free speech is the only way to prevent the world from sliding into oppressive totalitarianism. We can't protect our freedom when we're overly concerned with protecting someone's feelings or preserving any delusions they're holding onto that were created by fascist (government/corporate) propaganda. Unfortunately too many people prefer the illusion of safety over their God-given freedom, and companies like Vivaldi seem very willing to go along. By permanently suspending my Vivaldi Social account, Vivaldi Technologies has made the decision to silence me, a decision I endorse if I continue to use their products.

And in case you're wondering, I now use the Floorp browser, a version of Firefox developed by an independent team in Japan. I like it so far, and they haven't tried to impose their social or political views on their users. Not yet, at least.

The Existential Threat of the Existential Threat.

Image by Gerd Altmann

The Existential Threat of the Existential Threat.

By Thomas Buckley

Climate change is an existential threat.

Misinformation is an existential threat.

Inequality is an existential threat.

The next pandemic is an existential threat.

Our democracy is facing an existential threat.

And everyone must be prepared for each of them and prepared to do anything to stop them.

That’s the current line, at least – the line that is driving global society at all levels just up to the edge of sanity and cohesion.

And that’s on purpose, because it’s much easier to push someone over the edge when they are already standing next to it.

Each of these false threats are being intentionally inflicted, becoming comorbidities on an already weakened body politic, making it even more vulnerable to its destruction and its eventual death.

Being told you are going to die is devastating. Being told you and your family are going to die is monumentally awful. Being told everyone is going to die is…numbing. It creates a state of utter helplessness, a state in which you are far more pliant.

Your situational awareness dims, your flight or fight sense slows, and you just stand and stare until someone puts their arm around your shoulders and leads you away.

And those invoking that dread are waiting nearby to do just that – take society by the shoulder, offer it comfort on the form of entertainment, medication, and basic sustenance, and lead it away.

Each of the threats is aimed directly at the first principle of Western society – the primacy of the individual. All the threats, all of the communitarianism being foisted upon the culture – including the claim that it is what group a person is a part of, not the person themselves, that is the most important defining human characteristic – have the same underlying message: the elimination of the idea that society is made up of discrete individuals with personal agency.

And from not acknowledging individual agency to not permitting it at all is a very short step.

That is the actual existential threat of the false existential threats now bouncing around the globe, clattering into people and families and societies and cultures and intentionally causing so much chaos and disruption that just standing in one place is not necessarily an irrational decision.

Of course, none of the current coming catastrophes are existential threats – they aren’t really threats at all but the vanguard of the global socialite socialists statists has made sure the public thinks they are, under penalty of ostracization, job loss, and censorship.

Besides not being actual threats, they cannot even remotely be described as an existential threat. An existential threat is – in part – defined as a threat to the very existence of a thing or a system. It is terminal, global, and transgenerational. It is not transitory, it is not political, it is not determined by the people making the claim: to be an existential threat something must be real and unprecedented and permanent.

But the term – which seems to be important-sounding because it actually is – can be misused by people and groups to heighten the impact of their statement, no matter what it may be, because the actual definition is either not widely known or purposefully ignored by the people using it and the media that reports what they are claiming.

This opens the door to anything being described as such a threat. 

There is also the issue of the origin of the term – existential philosophers focused on subjective ideas of thought and emotion and action as they relate to existence while the more concrete “threats” described when the term is used are putatively real and specific. That is an additional misleading element of the use of the term.

In other words, the term is used to apply a thin veneer of intellectual certainty to the threat that it is claiming actually exists.

Despite the protestations of the greenocracy, the real global existential threat is not fossil fuel or proper food or basic human mobility or all of the other aspects of the material economy. 

The real threat is from the ethereal economy of government agencies, civil society actors, non-governmental organizations, foundations, and academia, all aided by the information cabal. Together they do, in fact, currently have the power to foist something upon civilization that truly is transgenerational, global, and terminal.

And the never-ending pretense of emergency is a powerful tool in accomplishing that goal:

What happens when that dreaded decision whether to jump right or left in the face of an oncoming car is not a once or twice in a lifetime decision, but a daily question? That constant state of trepidation grinds on people, placing humans into a state of making most if not all decisions from a place of panic instead of reason.

And it is during that constant state of nervous exhaustion – a state manufactured out of whole cloth by its potential beneficiaries – when those who wish to wield power in society strike.

What is being offered is a society in which no one can fail. But a society in which no one can fail is also a society in which no one can succeed, especially to the point where they can threaten the existing power structure.

And it is that threat – which is an existential threat to that spider web of profitable tyranny – that is being targeted by the global fear noise.

The democracy being threatened is “their” democracy, not “our” democracy.

The climate being threatened is their silver sheened scrubbed personal environment – the actual environmental destruction that is occurring is out of sight, the denigrating of the sub-Deltas who inhabit other places, is immaterial.

The information being threatened are the lies being told to prop up the societal transformation.  

The equality being threatened is their right to be more equal than others forever.

And the pandemic being threatened is the right to declare a pandemic on a whim, terrifying the public into ceding basic rights in the name of safety.

The means and the ends are interchangeable, creating a Mobius Strip of dehumanization on which every degrading tactic can be hidden – unless you know exactly where they lay, they are visible only out of the side of the eye, an oblique uncertainty, and can be easily dismissed as figments, as conspiracy theories.

It cannot be known exactly what will be touted as the next existential threat.

What is already known is whom it will benefit.

Note – it may seem a bit odd, but then again really not, but it could behoove all of us to take the advice of Hannibal Lecter when considering what the societal serial killers are seeking:

Published under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License courtesy of The Brownstone Institute.