Tracy Turner

Go to Section 1

While comparing figures like Donald Trump or the CEOs of the world's biggest tech companies to King George III may seem incendiary, it's through the concentration of wealth, influence, and power among these modern-day elites that a striking parallel emerges. This echelon, with its eerie overtones, mirrors what had been solely exercised by absolute monarchy.Â

The shift from monarchy to corporate empires has resulted in a few individuals shaping global policies and economies, distancing themselves from the effects on the masses. This article aims to draw parallels between King George III and today's elite through economic trends, power concentration, and policy manipulation. A closer look at the actions and influence of top tech billionaires provides a deeper understanding of how modern-day CEOs have assumed the role of a 'new crown.'

1. Concentration of Wealth and Power

King George III symbolized accumulated wealth and, therefore, a concentration of power in the hands of a single monarch. Similarly, today's global technological leaders wield immense influence, increasingly surpassing many national governments. Figures like Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, and Tim Cook head mighty empires that dominate the marketplace and even dictate global economic policies. The disparity in global wealth is more pronounced than ever: nearly half of all global wealth is controlled by the wealthiest 1%, a trend most evident in Silicon Valley and among the tech titans. This stark inequality underscores the immense power and influence these individuals hold, akin to the monarchs of old.

Full story »

Chris Spencer

Trump and His Inner Circle of Tech Titans Usher in a New Era of Greek-Style Austerity for the Masses While Insulating Themselves From the Economic Fallout.

In February 2025, the United States had begun the irreversible destruction of one of its most enduring emblems of goodwill toward the rest of the world, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). For decades, USAID had been a cornerstone of America's pledge to assuage suffering, promote democracy, and build stability.

The United States, as a global superpower, has long been a beacon of hope and aid for many nations. However, under the administration of former President Donald Trump and at the urging of tech mogul Elon Musk, this critical agency was defunded and eventually dismantled. To populists, it was a victory--an example of American self-interest reasserting its rightful place in the world.

However, this shift has far more significant consequences, underscoring deeper, darker currents in American identity and running the risk of diminished American leadership globally. At the heart of this shift is the myth of America as the world's most charitable nation--a story that the country has told itself loudly and repeatedly, but which falls apart on closer inspection.

Full story »

By Mark Aurelius

[As was the case for Part 1, this full article is included herein because of Internet censorship. For several days after Part 1 was published, practically all common search engines did not retrieve this title even if typed exactly (and even if surrounded by quotation marks!). Or they might eventually retrieve some obscure website that linked it, but in which it is difficult to actually find to the article itself (buried under the minutia of many other stories). A great deal of censorship has been happening due to algorithms and other devious means meant to censor certain topics or points of view. This is especially true if something is likely to be labeled anti-Semitic (regardless if true or not). And note that truth is not anti-Semitic in a rational and truly just world). If you agree this message, it is important you help promote it.]

It is important for all to read Part 1. Here are two links: Do not overlook this seminal statement.
https://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/TPV3/Voices.php/2025/01/23/trumprs-cabinet-selections-shows-us
or
https://stateofthenation.info/?p=13346

Still, for orientation purposes, four paragraphs from Part 1 are now quoted:
“Too many [of Trump’s nominees] reflect the rabid zealousness of Zionist domination already reigning in the U.S. Government, and its willingness to destroy our American 1st Amendment birthright, that is if speech happens to be critical of Jews, Zionism, and Israel, particularly Israel’s genocidal war against Palestinians.”…

Full story »

Scott Fleitas

Now we find ourselves part of a world wherein the names of a few companies--and their CEOs--have become synonymous with progress, innovation, and ease: Apple, Intel, Microsoft, Google (Alphabet), Amazon, and Oracle appear to be everywhere and to impact everything--from how we work and shop and communicate to even how we perceive reality. Behind the sleek interfaces, catchy slogans, and the ceaseless promise of "better, faster, smarter," there's a considerably darker side to the tech giants. A side few of us know about or, worse, care to admit.

It's not about products or services anymore; it's about power, control, and influence. These companies do not just shape consumer behavior but society--and not always for the better. Let's dig a little deeper into how they've become intertwined into the business of surveillance, censorship, and the explosion of mind control for a hefty dose of government contracts and influence. They are now taking on many aspects of the role, globally, of nation-states.

Full story »

By Tracy Turner

The news media, which at times describes itself as the bastion of truth and the watchdog of democracy, are often riddled with glaring inconsistencies regarding political figures. This selective scrutiny leads to a world where every single action of Donald Trump is picked apart, whereas Joe Biden and Benjamin Netanyahu receive rather lenient treatment despite their passage of policies with far-reaching consequences. The question is, what motivates this discrepancy within mainstream media coverage?

The Trump Phenomenon: Disproportionate Media Scrutiny

Love him or hate him, no one can deny that Donald Trump knows how to whip up a media frenzy. All the same, the blanket coverage of his actions often crosses the line from due diligence in journalism into sensationalism manufactured to sustain perpetual outrage.

Full story »

By Fred Gransville

It should come across as interesting to you: How a man who once sold steaks, vodka, and a gilded illusion of success imagines himself to be now brokering real estate deals with the entire world. Two weeks into his second term, Donald Trump called Gaza U.S. property-complete with boots on the ground. Were audacity not so frequently ignorance's mask, one could have called this the Art of the Deal.

Gaza, over the years, has been many things: haven, prison, battleground, icon of resistance; war-scarred strip of land-and now U.S. real estate? Like Afghanistan and Iraq before it? The consequences are more than just a change of policy, but a cataclysmic declaration that jettisons history and realpolitik in favor of branding and bravado. What does the U.S. hope to gain? A foothold in one of modern history's most politically unstable regions? An exercise in flexing power with an inevitable price? All lessons derived from past interventions into the Middle East have been bloody, expensive, and futile.

Full story »

Tracy Turner

Once upon a time, there was a Democratic Party: the hope of the working man, a champion of economic policy equity, civil rights, and the idea that good things might be done with government. Fast-forward to 2025, and that party is a cartoon version of itself: an empty vessel for elite interests, performative wokeness, and a whole laundry list of "non-issue" issues that has the traditional base of the party scratching its head, fleeing for cover. How in the name of all things holy could the party of FDR and LBJ be transformed into that of avocado toast, gender-neutral pronouns, and virtue-signaling billionaires? A tour de force through the abject moral turpitude of the Democratic Party and their not-so-funny tendency to commit political suicide.

Economic Fairness? More Likely Economic Farce

Does anyone remember when Democrats fought for workers, for unions, for social safety nets? Yeah, those days are about as dead as Blockbuster Video. In fact, by 2025, the party had swallowed hook, line, and sinker the neoliberal agenda: cuddling up to Wall Street, Silicon Valley, and the 1% they once pretended to fight. These days, they will talk about 'income inequality', but their actions are a joke. But of course, they virtue-signal about Universal Basic Income and student loan forgiveness, yet really did little to fix the problem that creates the economic disparity in the first place. Instead, they are a party of Big Tech monopolies, corporate bailouts, and tax loopholes for their billionaire donors. What do they give the working class? A promise of a $15 minimum wage—good as a screen door on a submarine.

Full story »

Chris Spencer

Capitol Riot Response (2021): Ashli Babbitt killed

Abstract: The question is not abstract or rhetorical. Since the beginning of the 20th century, in concert with the military-industrial complex, the tech-industrial complex, and private intelligence networks, the US federal government has waged a secret and not-so-secret war upon American patriots and dissidents. It has taken many forms: physical violence, for-profit prisons, PSYOPS, surveillance, and the systematic erosion of civil and constitutional rights. From J. Edgar Hoover's FBI to the modern-day surveillance state, the government has declared war on its people using tools of repression that have grown more sophisticated with time.

1. A Chronology of Warfare: Whom the US Government Has Targeted Since 1900

Targets of the US Federal government and its methods of war used against individuals, groups, and movements Throughout history:

Early 20th Century: The Roots of Repression

1919: The Palmer Raids, a watershed moment in the history of government repression. Target: Anarchists, socialists, and labor activists. Despite the overwhelming power of the government, these brave individuals stood up for their beliefs.

• Method: Under Attorney General A. Mitchell Palmer, the Department of Justice arbitrarily arrested and deported large numbers with even less regard for the law.
• Branch: DOJ, FBI (then Bureau of Investigation).

1920s-1930s: The Bonus Army

• Target: World War I veterans who were out to get paid promised bonuses
• Means: The US Army, under President Hoover's command, brutally suppressed the protesters in 1932 using tanks and tear gas, a stark display of the government's power. Branch: The US Army

Full story »

Paul Craig Roberts

The US will impose 25 percent tariffs on Mexico and Canada, and 10 percent on China, the Trump White House said. The purpose of tariffs is to protect domestic manufacturers and their work forces. What American manufacturers and workers are being protected by Trump’s tariffs? So much of US manufacturing is located offshore, what purpose are the tariffs serving?

The “tariffs” in reality are taxes imposed on imports of foreign produced goods, including the offshored production of US corporations of goods and services sold in the US. If the tariffs are paid by the consumer rather than by the US corporations that offshore their production for the American market, the effect will be to reduce the quantity demanded because of the higher price. How much this harms the offshore producers depends on whether their products are price elastic or inelastic. Some are one and some are the other.

This approach to bringing offshored US jobs back to America is incorrect. It demonstrates the economic ignorance of Trump and his advisors. Consider, for example, if US auto assembly relies on parts made in Canada, a 25% rise in parts cost could shutdown auto assembly and result in US unemployment. As best as I can tell, few auto parts are any longer produced in the US, so there is no industry to protect or to supply the parts that tariffs keep out. Before you can protect industries, you first must have them.

Full story »

Fred Gransville

Abstract:

Modern social justice introduces its protagonists-an eldritch theatre of characters in ever-altered roles, upon whose stages everybody in the audience seems constantly torn between cheering them on or just getting up to leave. This paper tries to deconstruct this intricate ballet called DEI-not with the scalpel of earnest critique, but rather with the feather duster of satire. It is an analysis of the paradoxical nature of DEI, its noble aims, and often farcical execution that attempts to throw light on the absurdities that arise when virtue becomes a commodity and morality a marketable asset. And because I'm feeling particularly curmudgeonly today, I'll throw in a few grumpy asides about why no one seems to notice how ridiculous this has become. Introduction:

The DEI movement was born from a laudable desire to correct historical injustices, but it has grown into a sprawling ecosystem of policies, training, and performative gestures. This is the world where even the very language of liberation has been hijacked by structures that it seeks to dismantle, each reflection being a distorted image in the hall of mirrors that signifies progress.

Therefore, the dialectics of virtues are debated in this paper, with satire being the magnifying glass that brings into full view its numerous hypocrisies and paradoxes.

Since I am on a roll, I will add, well, why nobody appears to have the guts to state that, well, the emperor's new clothes are, well, a patchwork quilt of buzzwords and good intentions gone wrong. Some sort of disgusting, absurd play in which the actors had forgotten their lines and the audience wasn't quite sure whether to applaud. Chapter 1: The Virtue Bazaar

Full story »