I think you may need to be more clear in your communications. Unless I've completely misread what you just said, under the logic you just followed you are sayi

I think you may need to be more clear in your communications. Unless I've completely misread what you just said, under the logic you just followed you are saying if you speak out at all in public its a malign influence campaign. I stuck mostly with what's been well documented, if you have a counterpoint feel free to insert that but if you haven't noticed, features in technology for reliable communications have been being removed relatively silently, and social credit systems currently in existence do just what I said they do. Its inspired both the "Last Generation", and the "Let It Rot" movements and saying otherwise lacks credibility. As for that ideology that you put forth, that is completely irrational. You can't have free thought without being rational, and free speech is fundamentally linked to freedom of thought, you can't have one without the other. There have been a number of studies that culminated in the formalization of the Whorfian Hypothesis which clarifies this link. If you can't critically consider an alternate perspective and take what works, do you really have free thought? I don't mean just you, but in general any living cohort. You casually point the finger at US companies, but are they really? Sure they might be registered there initially but what of the people behind them with controlling interest. If you look at the people behind the curtain, most companies have been sold from their initial startup phases, and the people who currently run them, I wonder how did they continue making their money after that, and their continued operation what is it dependent on? What policies are these people putting forward at their meetings like at Davos. In almost all cases its dependent on cheap surplus labor. There's only really been one competitive option for the past few decades which appears largely by design, though is now changing. The 'tyrant-techno-or-industry-kings', as you put it, for the most part want socialism, but they'll never say so publicly but that does not change the fact that they do so because its structurally advantageous for 'them' and only them. They can make more profit, have less competitors, keep more of their gains, consolidate, concentrate, and accumulate more power and influence government as a form of un-elected shadow government. These are the benefits, the only benefit to not pushing for that is solidarity in the fact that they are principled people, and stability in the long view (which doesn't make a profit). I think its worth clarifying upfront, they cease to be free-market capitalists the moment they seek undue influence over the market such as towards monopoly or oligopoly. > The "Republic" of America ... You're mistaken about that. America was founded on upholding property rights, unconstrained trade, division of labor, freedom of thought, communication, and agency, and as a means to an end unseating any bastards that represent an existential threat. We have only started having systemic troubles after changes were made that constrained, degraded, or corrupted each of those areas.