The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewIlana Mercer Archive
Centralize Liberty: The Solution to Wicked, Woke Tech (Part 3)
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

This column is Part 3 of a 3-part series. Read Part 1, “Big Tech’s Financial Terrorism And Social Excommunication” and Part 2, “Justice Thomas’ Solution to Big Tech’s Social And Financial Excommunication.”


It is inarguable that by financially crippling and socially segregating, and banishing politically irksome people and enterprises—the Big Tech cartel is flouting the spirit, if not the strict letter, of the Civil Rights Act.

For how do you make a living if your banking options are increasingly curtailed and constantly threatened, and your ability to electronically communicate with clients is likewise circumscribed?

Do you go back to a barter economy (a book for some bread)? Do you go underground? Cultivate home-based industries? Do you keep afloat by word of mouth? Go door-to-door? Return to stamping envelopes? How can you, when your client base is purely electronic?

Telling an individual he can’t open a bank account on account of the beliefs and opinions swirling in his head teeters on informing your innocent victim he might not be able to make a living, as do other, politically more polite Americans, and despite his innocence: Our only “offenses” as dissidents are thought crimes, namely, speaking, or typing or wafting into the air unpopular, impolite words.

“[I]n assessing whether a company exercises substantial market power,” Justice Clarence Thomas has argued, “what matters is whether the alternatives are comparable. For many of today’s digital platforms, nothing is.”

To paraphrase this Supreme Court jurist: Sure, there are alternatives to The Big Tech, but these make a mockery of the outcast. It would hardly be hyperbole, in driving home Justice Thomas’s point about comparability, to put it thus:

With respect to financial de-platforming, barring someone from PayPal is like prohibiting a passenger from crossing the English Channel by high-speed train, via ferry and by means of 90 percent of airplanes. “Have at it sucker.”

By Deep Tech decree, some Americans are worth more than others, based not on their actions, but on the voiced thoughts in their heads. This cannot stand.

The letter of the law needs changing. Do it.

Civil Rights Act

Thus, the preferred remedy to Deep Tech depredations would build upon existing Civil Rights Act jurisprudence.

As a reality-oriented conservative libertarian, I inhabit and theorize in the real world. From the conservative-libertarian’s perspective, Barry Goldwater got it right. Civil Rights law is an ass, for it infringes on property rights. But the onus is on flaccid Republican lawmakers to ensure that that ass can be ridden by all equally (with apologies to adorable, much-abused donkeys for the cruel metaphor).

These are existing laws that are already enforced. I see no reason to reject the application of civil rights solutions to wicked, woke bullies because existing laws that’ll never be repealed go against my core beliefs. What is libertarianism? The art of losing in life because of a slavish devotion to theoretical purity?

In this vein, why is it legal for PayPal to prevent law-abiding individuals from transacting financially, but the Civil Rights Commission prohibits a small business owner from refusing to bake a cake for gay nuptials?

Yes, state anti-discrimination Acts variously decree that people of different persuasions cannot be denied “equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation.”

Civil Rights law must be applied evenly. In the cause of neutralizing Deep Tech, it is but a small thing to extend the prohibition against such discrimination to innocent thought criminals.

Develop a powerful civil-rights based argument in defense of the rights of law-abiding individuals to expressed their worldviews without being excommunicated socially and financially. Then take it to the Supreme Court of the United States.

Imposing The Negative Duty Of Tolerance

Another proposal (made cryptically on Twitter by Richard Spencer) is to proclaim social media platforms as free speech, censorship-free zones. Both Republicans and Democrats would have to contend with speech they abhor.

A federal proclamation of social media platforms as censorship-free zones, as I see it, could be a kind of codified declaration of shared public values.

I like the idea, as it concerns a negative duty, which requires only that we refrain from injuring others in the real sense (as opposed to the bogus, snowflake sense, which encompasses hurt feelings). I have no qualms about imposing the harmless negative duty of tolerance on intolerant tyrannical entities—business or bureaucracy—when in violation of individual, natural rights.

Differently put, natural rights antedate the state apparatus. It matters not who restores or upholds authentic negative rights violated—state or federal authority—just so long as someone does.

Alas, Spencer’s idea of unfettered free speech would have worked for the old liberal left; but not with the new, illiberal left, which relishes its power to crush conservatives culturally and economically.


Of theoretical importance is the fact that value created on Twitter and Facebook is derived in large part from the users of these platforms, who have homesteaded and titivated their pages, in a manner.

Some will claim that by privileging platform users as opposed to platform proprietors with creating value on the cyberspace domain, through acts of homesteading, I am echoing Marx’s Labor Theory of Value. Again, I reject the defeatist argument from theoretical purity.

All the more so considering that the commodities the Tech overlords are enjoined to tolerate are harmless, ethereal pixels, words wafting into the ether.

Big Tech bullies don’t have to entertain Nick Fuentes or Richard Spencer in person in their kitschy McMansions. Mark Zuckerberg (Facebook), Sundar Pichai (Google), Tim Cook (Apple) and Jeff Bezos (Amazon) only have to tolerate the pixelated, written or spoken words of their ideological enemies.

Make them!


Ilana Mercer has been writing a weekly, paleolibertarian think piece since 1999. She’s the author of Into the Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons for America From Post-Apartheid South Africa (2011) & The Trump Revolution: The Donald’s Creative Destruction Deconstructed” (June, 2016). She’s on Twitter, Gab, YouTube & LinkedIn; banned by Facebook, and has a new Podcast

Hide 11 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. I’m not a libertarian — but I cant find much to disagree with here. Big tech has no right to censor or “excommunicate” those who express opinions with which they “disagree”. They ARE in effect monopolies. Censorship etc is an illegitimate use of those monopoly powers. (they should all be treated like Standard Oil….)

  2. What is libertarianism? The art of losing in life because of a slavish devotion to theoretical purity?

    Yes, that’s pretty much what it is, along with being a pothead. Which is one of the many reasons why the LP will never amount to squat.

  3. Realist says:

    Your article surely pertains to TUR’s own butt-hurt… self-important authors such as Linh Dinh, Paul Craig Roberts among others.

  4. ruralguy says:

    Social Media isn’t “big tech” nor “high tech.” They are advertisers. Amazon isn’t high or big tech either. It is a retailer. Google seems to have produced Google maps and autonomous vehicles, but they did not innovate these. They copied the concept from the Defense Industry, where they’ve been around for decades. In 1970s, the CIA produced mapping software that was far more advanced than today’s Google maps, other than the commercial features. The autonomous vehicle software is more than 50 years old. An Italian economist found that more than 90% of technology in an Apple’s phone was developed in the Defense Industry. Microsoft got it’s beginning by repackaging an operating system it didn’t even own at the time to IBM and then rifling through other companies for innovation. In 1987, Apple sued Microsoft for stealing the Mac’s look and feel which they had stole from Xerox. These social media and retailing companies aren’t high tech, they are just advertisers and retailers, with pretty bad morals, stealing and packaging old innovations into sellable products.

    40 years ago, most engineers were on the right politically. In the 1980s, the software and internet money starting drawing people to the engineering field who were not interested in engineering, just making money. These newcomers were largely much left of center. They really aren’t engineers, just carpet baggers. They’ve given us social media which is destroying young people. They’ve given us internet retailing which helped destroy local commerce. Like the old southern carpet baggers, they are destroyers of our culture.

  5. Well you have hit the mark again. Let’s just see how influential you become.

  6. Thanks for adding “titivated” to my vocabulary.

    • LOL: ILANA Mercer
    • Replies: @Rogue
  7. cohen says:

    And dont forget to include digital equipment technologies about mouse or windows concept stolen by both Apple and Microsoft. DE should have patented their innovation at the time.
    How Bill Gate deceived his friend who wrote the DOS (disk operating system), just paid him $ 10,000 and telling the poor guy it was for Confidential client. The client name was/is IBM.

    As far this author (that I call wolf in sheep clothing), she is just a bull horn for the Israeli State. She is delusional enough to call Israel a democratic country and fails to mention that democracy is meant for the chosen ones. Non white jews or non Jews are not welcome in the “great” democracy, a heaven for criminals, pedophiles, tax dodgers, criminals on the run, traitors, war criminals the list goes on.

  8. Mark Hunter says: • Website

    [The so-called civil rights laws] are existing laws that are already enforced. I see no reason to reject the application of civil rights solutions to wicked … bullies because existing laws that will never be repealed go against my core beliefs. What is libertarianism, the art of losing in life because of a slavish devotion to theoretical purity?

    And it would be amusing to see the Tech Totalitarians argue against or work to repeal the Civil Rights Act.

  9. Rogue says:
    @gutta percha

    Yes, I also looked it up.

    Thought maybe was a typo at first.

    Ha ha.

    • LOL: ILANA Mercer
  10. anarchyst says:

    Civil-rights laws should be used to invalidate any mask or “jab” mandate. No person’s job or public accommodation to a business establishment should be held hostage to an experimental “jab” or forced “face diaper” wearing.
    Civil rights attorneys, where are you??

  11. G. Poulin says:

    It has been obvious from day one that the civil rights laws were intended to work in one direction only — to benefit some members of society and to harm others. So good luck with trying to get protection for conservatives under the civil rights “laws”. Here’s an alternative : how about we have a revolution and put all the leftists up against the wall?

    • Agree: Mr. Rational
Current Commenter

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone

 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Ilana Mercer Comments via RSS
The Surprising Elements of Talmudic Judaism
Analyzing the History of a Controversial Movement
From the Leo Frank Case to the Present Day
Shouldn't they recuse themselves when dealing with the Middle East?
The Shaping Event of Our Modern World
The JFK Assassination and the 9/11 Attacks?