Much has been said about leftist institutional dominance in the US, some self evident, some discovered, and some speculative. Though relatively few outlets are covering the latest so far, for reasons we’ll get into, it turns out the “muh Russian disinfo” about Hunter Biden’s emails was in fact true. The media and tech companies censoring the story in the interest of “fact checking” declined to actually check at the very least, and to a systematic extent, tried to discredit the story, in order to protect Biden from a potential scandal in the latter days of the 2020 election.
In his new book, “The Bidens: Inside the First Family’s Fifty-Year Rise to Power,” Politico reporter Ben Schreckinger says that evidence points to Hunter Biden’s laptop being legit.
While we appreciate the support, the truth is The Post’s reports always have been true, and it’s only because the media wants to protect Joe Biden that they keep referring to the laptop as “unsubstantiated.”
But Hunter Biden’s former business partner Tony Bobulinski already said those emails were authentic — the media just ignored him.
Schreckinger adds that emails released by the Swedish government also match emails from the laptop (Hunter had gotten into a kerfuffle when he was staying in a Swedish embassy building). That’s also been reported.
https://nypost.com/2021/09/21/the-hu...or-us-shocked/So, the family routinely uses Joe’s name and connections to enrich themselves, selling access, etc, and Joe lies about it. Hunter’s still selling paintings for hundreds of thousands of dollars, thanks to who his dad is, etc. Bad, but not really the worst part of this IMO. The truly dystopian implications of this are revealed by the seamless and systematic way the media, big tech, and political figures sympathetic to Biden censored and discredited the truth in order to protect his candidacy.Originally Posted by Original Story
Consider, for example, the infamous “CIA letter” from Jim Clapper et al:
They go on to say that IF the emails were faked, it would be “consistent with Russian disinfo efforts.” They didn’t say what the media would run with, which is, “the story is fake Russian disinfo, omg poor Joe.” Whether you want to blame the media for not verifying a story the collective bias of their reporters and executives wanted to be true, or these former intel officials for publicizing speculation knowing the press would run with it, or both, the ideological symmetry of the bias is clear from the outset. Recall that Twitter locked the Post out of their own account, and both Twitter and Facebook censored the story as much as possible. Twitter would relent and apologize; I’m not sure Facebook ever has, and also censored the Post for factual reporting on Black Lives Matter and the Lab Leak Theory.We want to emphasize that we do not know if the emails, provided to the New York Post by President Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani, are genuine or not and that we do not have evidence of Russian involvement -- just that our experience makes us deeply suspicious that the Russian government played a significant role in this case.
If we are right, this is Russia trying to influence how Americans vote in this elec8on, and we believe strongly that Americans need to be aware of this.
https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000...7-579f9b330000
The press insisted the story was not credible. Democratic leadership seethed any time they were asked about it. Big tech used its disproportionate power over public discourse to silence it. All in the name of “fighting disinformation.” The left was so determined to prevent another 2016, it didn’t matter how far free speech needed to be bent, or what sort of propaganda effort needed to be mounted, to prevent that. Joe had to be protected. He had to make it to the White House. Everything else was of secondary or tertiary concern.
The 180 on the credibility of the lab leak theory is another infamous example. Anything the Democrat Party decides is an inconvenient or harmful narrative gets branded a “far right conspiracy.” And the press and Big Tech enforce that idea in a feedback loop. Negative press about Trump/Republicans does not get nearly the scrutiny from these so called “fact checkers,” true or not. The FBI has confirmed, for example, there was no evidence of an organized plot to overturn the election during the Capitol Riot, nor any central coordination from third parties.
Right wing riot(s) will never get the “fiery but mostly peaceful protest” treatment from the press. That’s a given. But not even a report from a mainstream source like Reuters has dented the deluge of conspiratorial seething across the media ecosystem. The plot only thickens. Insinuations of an FBI cover up emerge amongst the uninterrupted recriminations about the “attempted coup” and the ongoing “Trumpist threat to democracy.” Where are the fact checkers now? The former intel officials warning against efforts to sow chaos among the body politic and the potential for disinformation? I digress.The FBI has found scant evidence that the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol was the result of an organized plot to overturn the presidential election result, according to four current and former law enforcement officials.
Though federal officials have arrested more than 570 alleged participants, the FBI at this point believes the violence was not centrally coordinated by far-right groups or prominent supporters of then-President Donald Trump, according to the sources, who have been either directly involved in or briefed regularly on the wide-ranging investigations.
"Ninety to ninety-five percent of these are one-off cases," said a former senior law enforcement official with knowledge of the investigation. "Then you have five percent, maybe, of these militia groups that were more closely organized. But there was no grand scheme with Roger Stone and Alex Jones and all of these people to storm the Capitol and take hostages."
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/exc...es-2021-08-20/
Not only are tabloids left to do the kind of investigative reporting the MSM is too inundated with Democrat hacks to even pretend to do, but this isn’t even a conspiracy. That’s the terrifying part. Leftist institutional dominance is so pervasive, its manifestation is entirely organic, self-perpetuating, and mob-like. There’s no Publicity Department censoring the news and elevating puff pieces friendly to the Party. The people in position to propagate and reinforce this bias genuinely believe their bias is righteous and good. It’s not a shortcoming. It’s a badge of honorable activism. The truth doesn’t matter, only the mission to defeat the “bad.” And that’s what’s dangerous. I don’t see how something like this could ever be unwound in the foreseeable future. The country is increasingly worse off for it, as more and more “counter revolutionaries” find themselves in the proverbial gulag, which in turn feeds radicalization of its own kind. This state of affairs was not unanticipated.
For something very odd and unexpected has, in the past decade, been happening to the bourgeois masses who inhabit our new urban civilization. Though bourgeois in condition and lifestyle, they have become less bourgeois in ethos, and strikingly more mob-like in action. Perhaps this has something to do with a change in the economic character of our bourgeois civilization. Many critics have noted the shift from a producer’s ethic (the so-called Protestant ethic) to a consumer’s ethic, and go on to affirm that a bourgeois society of widespread affluence is in its essence radically different from a bourgeois society where scarcity automatically imposes a rigorous discipline of its own. This explanation is all the more plausible in that it echoes, in an academic way, the wisdom of the ages as to the corrupting effects of material prosperity upon the social order.
The ways in which various strata of our citizenry—from the relatively poor to the relatively affluent—are beginning to behave like a bourgeois urban mob are familiar to anyone who reads his newspaper, and I do not propose to elaborate upon them. The interesting consideration is the extent to which a mob is not simply a physical presence but also, and above everything else, a state of mind. It is, to be precise, that state of mind which lacks all of those qualities that, in the opinion of the founding fathers, added up to republican morality: steadiness of character, deliberativeness of mind, and a mild predisposition to subordinate one’s own special interests to the public interest. Since the founding fathers could not envisage a nation of bourgeois—a nation of urbanized, prosperous, and strongly acquisitive citizens—they located republican morality in the agrarian sector of American life. We, in this century, have relocated it in the suburban and small-city sector of American life—our contemporary version of America’s “grass roots.” And it now appears that our anticipations may be treated as roughly by history as were those of the founding fathers.
It is this startling absence of values that represents the authentic “urban crisis” of our democratic, urban nation. The fact that the word “urbanity” applies both to a condition of urban things and a state of urban mind may be an accident of philology—but if so it is a happy accident, for it reminds us of the interdependence of mind and thing. That same interdependence is to be found in the word, “democracy,” referring as it does simultaneously to a political system and to the spirit—the idea—that animates this system. The challenge to our urban democracy is to evolve a set of values and a conception of democracy that can function as the equivalent of the “republican morality” of yesteryear. This is our fundamental urban problem. Or, in the immortal words of Pogo: “I have seen the enemy and he is us.”
https://www.commentary.org/articles/...s-discontents/