Unexpected Admissions from the Media

March – early April 2022 we’re seeing some surprising admissions from the media: First they— including the New York Times and Washington Post— admit that the Hunter Biden story was legit. Here’s the New York Post discussing the other papers’ motives for acknowledging the story: https://nypost.com/2022/04/01/new-york-times-finally-admit-hunters-laptop-is-real-but-only-to-protect-joe-biden/

Then the Clinton campaign gets fined by the Federal Election Commission for electoral violations regarding the fake Steele dossier… and the media reports this!

From an article by Eric Tucker, Associated Press, circa March 20, 2022. Oligarchs drop their lawsuit over Trump dossier. (There’s that word “oligarchs” again. Empirically, it means: A rich person who’s a citizen of a country we’re currently doing a two-minute hate on.) There are a few interesting admissions in this article, all within one paragraph:

The Steele dossier has been largely discredited since its publication, with core aspects of the material exposed as unsupported and unproven rumors. A special counsel assigned to investigate the origins of the Trump-Russia probe has charged one of Steele’s sources for the dossier with lying to the FBI, and has also charged a cybersecurity lawyer who worked for Hillary Clinton’s campaign with lying to the FBI during a 2016 meeting in which he relayed concerns about Alfa Bank.

Here’s another piece, by Jill Colvin of the Associated Press, March 31, 2022: DNC, Clinton campaign agree to Steele dossier funding fine:

Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee have agreed to pay $113,000 to settle a Federal Election Commission investigation into whether they violated campaign finance law by misreporting spending on research that eventually became the infamous Steele dossier…

Documents have shown the FBI invested significant resources attempting to corroborate the dossier and relied substantially on it to obtain surveillance warrants targeting former Trump campaign aide Carter Page.

But the dossier has been largely discredited since its publication, with core aspects of the material exposed as unsupported and unproven rumors. A special counsel assigned to investigate the origins of the Trump-Russia probe charged one of Steele’s sources with lying to the FBI and charged a cybersecurity lawyer who worked for Clinton’s campaign with lying to the FBI during a 2016 meeting in which he relayed concerns about the Russia-based Alfa Bank.

What the hell is going on?

If you were naive you’d say, “The truth has to come out sooner or later, and for the left this is a good time to release it, because we’re now well after the time the 2020 election can be contested, and well before the 2024 election, and everybody is currently distracted by the Russia-Ukraine thing.” But that’s wrong because no, the truth does not have to come out sooner or later, not in the minds of the NPCs who are the media’s main target audience. The media doesn’t “have to” admit anything ever.

This isn’t, say, 1999, when the Internet was big enough to affect our politics and hadn’t yet been corralled into controlled spaces like Twitter, etc.

So I have three guesses hypotheses. They all involve a ramping up of factional war within the left. One hypothesis is that first some anti-Biden faction struck at the Biden faction by reviving the Hunter Biden story. Then the Biden camp, believing— rightly or wrongly— that the Clinton camp did that, struck at the Clinton camp by spreading the news that the Steele dossier was bullshit and that the Clinton camp has been fined for it.

My second hypothesis is that this is an anti-white faction within the left striking out at both the Clinton camp and the Biden camp to hasten the demise of white influence within the Democratic party.

Or maybe it’s the Kamala Harris faction— there is a Kamala Harris faction, I guess?— getting potentially inconvenient Dems out of her way for Her Turn.

Or maybe something else. But this definitely smells like intra-left fighting to me.

As I’ve remarked before, We now read the news like the citizens of the Soviet Union read their news.

Those of us with a clue do, anyway. One reads that the FEC has fined Clinton and asks, “How the fuck did THAT story get approved for publication? Who has both the power and motivation to do that?”

(Postscript: Kamala Harris getting the Big Prize would be very, very, very, very bad. But there would be a tiny silver lining, the smallest possible silver lining, a “quantum of solace,” if I may swipe a phrase from a Bond flick: Watching Hillary Clinton’s head explode literally, yes literally, like in that movie Scanners from decades ago, when some female other than Herself Clinton becomes the first woman President. Imagine Hillary seething with rage at that election result! I really hope that Harris never gets the Presidency (just saying it is scary). But if she does, God forbid, I hope she invites the Clintons to the inauguration.)

Miscellany 27: When you stare long into the Miscellany, the Miscellany also stares into you

(1) I don’t agree with the view of NRx that monarchy is better than democracy. I suspect the people who think that are comparing the sordid reality of democracy to the radiant vision of the best theoretical monarchy. That’s not a valid comparison; we must compare the sordid reality of democracy to the sordid reality of monarchy.

But.

It looks like we don’t have a choice anyway. Apparently history says either we’re going to get totalitarianism, which as a practical matter is going to be led by one person a la Stalin, or we’re going to get a Caesar, who is going to destroy our current totalitarianism and replace it with a non-totalitarian monarchy. In other words, in the long run it looks like our only choices are one kind of monarchy or another kind of monarchy.

If it is true that those are the only two possibilities, then it indeed makes sense to think about how to bend the coming monarchy, if we get one, into its best-case scenario.

(2) Director Eats Too Many Finger Paints in Art Class, Tries to Make TV Show Trailer

“Drama is people doing amazing things for good reasons; melodrama is people doing amazing things for no reason.” —Dictum of fiction writers.

Via Blind Prison of the Mind
https://blindprisonofthemind.substack.com/p/the-wheel-of-time

There’s a desperately sad trailer for an upcoming Wheel of Time vidya series. The Wheel of Time books are a fantasy series I haven’t read, but they’re well known among fantasy fans.

The trailer goes like this. A bunch of people – suitably racially diverse for Current Year – are sitting around in an old-timey tavern and inn. It’s definitely not a pub, let alone a bar or club, but a tavern. There’s no electricity, everything’s made of wood, etc. There’s a massive fireplace, the fireplace equivalent of a walk-in closet. That bad-ass fireplace turns out to be the best thing about this moronic trailer. We get enough shots of the clientele laughing to get that this is a laid back/party environment where everyone is having a good time. In fact, there’s enough unexplained acausal laughing that I started to wonder what the fucking joke was. But okay, whatever.

There’s a moment of two dudes having some dumb beta orbiter talk about the barmaid.

Then the stupidity really kicks in. The tavern door opens and we see a pair of boots. The camera is on the floor, lingering on this pair of boots. We cut away to some reaction shots of the tavern’s customers. They’re all appalled, or shocked, or just stunned into silence. My God, what is it? Back to the floor-level camera, showing us the boots walking a bit. “This is weird,” I thought, “what’s with the boots?” Then another couple of reaction shots of the stunned clientele. What is it, a dude with two heads or something? Then another floor-cam shot of the boots, walking. At this point I blurted, “What the hell? Is the director of this a foot fetishist?”

Then the camera pulls back and we see what has caused the tense hush among the people. It’s… a man! This is what has shocked the tavern’s customers into speechlessness. Or maybe it’s the fact that he left the door open behind him – on this rainy winter night – and they’re all thinking, “What a douche!”

(New joke:
You: “A guy walks into a bar.”
People you’re telling the joke to: “Yeah, then what?”
You: “I can’t tell you; I’m shocked into silence by a guy walking into a bar.”)

Challenged by the barmaid to identify himself, he dramatically pulls back the hood of his cloak and introduces himself as “Joe Shmoe, moron who was raised in a barn,” or whatever, I wasn’t really paying attention. Then we jump to a flashback or dream sequence or hallucination or something. It’s a severely out-of-focus shot of a figure walking toward the camera. What does it mean? The focus resolves and wait, nope, it’s not a dream sequence; it’s just a woman walking into the tavern, out of focus for absolutely no reason whatsoever. In she walks, and she also leaves the door open, even though there is no one else coming in after her. What a fucking twat!

The man introduces her and she orders a stable for their horses and a room for the night, a move that is so unexpected in this tavern and inn that everyone is still speechless. Finally the tavern owner is like “No prob; I’ll sesh you,” and… that’s the scene.

As one YouTube commenter asks:

“How do you reckon that conversation went? ‘Okay, so here’s the plan. I’ll walk in alone while you stay out in the rain and wait for people to stop what they’re doing to notice me before announcing myself. Then when I announce you you dramatically walk out of the downpour, and we leave the door open.’”

There also is a thread of commenters who have read the books wondering why these two people, who apparently need to be traveling incognito, are doing everything possible to draw attention to themselves short of setting their hair on fire.

The whole trailer is notably fuckwitted, and it raises a question: What the fuck was the animating idea for this scene? Worse, this is what the producers of this thing think is one of the best scenes in the production, good enough to be featured in an ad for it. It’s clear from watching it that the director had no idea what the fuck he – or she! – was doing. An ad for a new show should make us think “Wow, that looks really cool” or “Hmm, I’m intrigued by the mystery.” Instead we’re thinking either (1) Close the fucking door! or (2) Why did they hire a director of foot fetish porn for this project?

That foot thing is surreal. You have to watch the clip to believe it. The director was just copying some technique he saw somewhere and now he thinks that’s just how you do it: You focus on the feet. This is a textbook example of the cargo-cult mentality: copying techniques without the faintest idea of why and how the techniques were originally used. Presumably this kind of shot originally was used in a way that made sense. One can easily imagine such uses. E.g., it’s from the viewpoint of a character who just got slugged and is lying on the floor. Etc. But this dumb-ass director has never even contemplated the notion that cinematic techniques are used for a reason. He just saw it in a music video once and thought, “I’ll do that.”

(Is western society becoming more idiotic? Or was it always this stupid, and the past seems better because the crap is forgotten over time, leaving mostly the good stuff?)

I tried to come up with a hypothesis of some conscious goal that the producers of this crap had in mind as they tried to string a coherent thought together in the fog of their oxygen-deprived haze. And maybe there is a semi-sentient purpose in this: to name two major characters who will be familiar to the fans of the book series. Thus we get Barn-Boy dramatically pushing his hood back and saying “I’m Barn Boy,” then adding, “And this is Standing-In-The-Rain Girl.” (No, I’m not going to re-watch it to see what their actual names are; I’ve already watched the crap twice, which is more than enough.) But this is done badly; badly enough for the YouTube comments to be overwhelmingly mocking. Do it correctly, asshats.

Off the top of my head: We start with the tavern. Two people enter. They don’t leave the door open, they don’t stand there in the middle of the floor, and they don’t do anything else to call attention to themselves. They unobtrusively go straight to a table and take a seat. They doff their hoods, not melodramatically, but normally, and we see that one is a man, who is sitting with his back to a wall so he can see the whole room, and the other, facing him, is a woman. He says to her, “Why don’t you swing around a bit so you don’t have your back to the room, [Her Name].” And she replies, “I don’t have to worry about that, [His Name]; I have you to watch out for me.” Thus we get their names for the fans, and we also get realistic behavior. We also get some mystery for the non-fans, because we want to know why it’s dangerous for her to be sitting with her back to the room and how/why she has this bodyguard traveling with her. And can the average person afford a bodyguard? Presumably not, so that raises the question of her social position as well. Is this a countess traveling incognito or what? And if so, why?

If that’s not enough there’s her ring, which figures prominently in the actual trailer. I have no idea what its significance is, but that could be worked in as well. Just have a barmaid come over to take their order and have the woman quickly pull her hand under her sleeve, obviously trying to hide the ring. That adds more mystery. And the whole scene, if I say so myself, has an appropriate measure of drama. None of it involves bizarre camera work that pulls the viewer out of the scene with its grating pointlessness, people traveling incognito going out of their way to call attention to themselves, or humanly unrealistic reactions of people being shocked into speechlessness by the once-in-a-lifetime spectacle of a guy walking into a bar.

Now my version doesn’t end on a dramatic note, so if you want, you can then do the standard rapid-fire montage of action shots to let people know that, yes, there is some action, and yes, we have a special effects budget of more than fifty bucks. Fine. It’s been done, but it’s better than trying to whip up drama with a couple of people requesting lodging at a tavern/inn.

Now as I said, I’ve never read the books. Maybe they’re not on some dangerous quest and my bodyguard notion is off. But I’ve heard this is a classic “band of heroes teams up to defeat the bad guy before he destroys the world” fantasy series. So there’s something interesting about them, or there wouldn’t be a series of like ten books devoted to their quest. Whatever that interesting thing is, the dialogue between them can hint at it.

I literally just made this up, and I dare say it does a better job than the version they actually came up with. I’m pretty sure that my version would at least dodge dozens of comments to the effect of “Close the fucking door, asshats,” and might even interest a few people.

(3) Circa November 8, 2021: I read some article about a guy slashing a bunch of people on a train in Germany. They don’t report the perpetrator’s name or any details. So of course I make certain inferences about the attacker.

If you dig around you can, with a little effort, find out the attacker’s salient identity-politics characteristics. He’s a Syrian immigrant. Surprise!

But that’s not my main point. My main point is that it recently hit me:

We now read the news like the citizens of the Soviet Union read their news.

Soviet citizens would read Pravda not because they thought it told them the truth, but because they could infer certain truths from Pravda by analyzing its content. They noted what it said, what it didn’t say, how it said what it said, how the narrative would do a blatant 180 from one week to the next, etc.

All that is stuff we do now, at least those of us with a clue. The newspaper didn’t tell me that the attacker was a Muslim and/or non-white and/or immigrant, but I inferred that with a high degree of confidence from what they didn’t say.

Of course, those of us who aren’t leftist wackos have been reading in a manner somewhat like this for decades, but it’s become different in the last few years. Consider e.g. the media’s simultaneous assertions, starting in late 2016, that subverting US elections is impossible (and anyone who thinks it’s possible is a fascist), and that Trump and Russia subverted a US election. That is a new level of double-think. The media has demanded that its faithful leftist readers abandon all principle, and embrace hypocrisy, for a long time. But

“US elections cannot be subverted and Trump subverted a US election”

is new. It is a leveling-up of the psychological demands made on the ideologically faithful.

Another case from 2016 is the case of Hillary Clinton having a blatant seizure on video, followed by the media saying, “You did not just see her having a seizure.” This was the clearest case of “How many fingers am I holding up, Winston?” that I can think of.

The other major example over the last few years is the new approach to reporting based on racial criteria. The media always reported in ways that helped the leftist party line on race. But lately the deliberate burying of news stories of black-on-white violence, playing up of the opposite stories, etc., has intensified significantly. It has mutated from silence about black-on-white violence to an attempt to convince the population of the opposite of the truth about inter-racial violence. The truth, which one can still learn from official crime statistics— for the time being— is that blacks are several times as likely to attack whites as vice-versa. But the media purposefully report, and don’t report, news stories in such a way as to create the opposite impression. I fear that many young people in the US might believe that whites attacking blacks is more common than the opposite.

Of course we know the media does this, but here’s an interesting case in which they actually admit to doing it. Here’s a piece at a Binghamton NY media outlet in which they lament, in 2019, that a 2009 shooting has all but been forgotten. Gosh, why was it forgotten?

https://www.pressconnects.com/story/news/local/2019/03/27/binghamton-mass-shooting-aca-american-civic-association-forgotten-murders/3222090002/

“Not that the community wants to be solely identified by its own active shooter at an immigrant center that claimed the life of 13 victims 10 years ago.”

Goodness, a shooting at an immigrant facility! It must have been a white supremacist!

“But with each subsequent mass shooting, it seems the shocking incident that gripped this community in fear and mourning on a rainy and chilly Friday morning fades further from the nation’s collective memory, creating a double tragedy for the innocent, many of whom were foreign nationals in an English class.”

We read a rather lengthy article filled with woe that this shooting has been forgotten. Strangely, the identity of the shooter is never mentioned. Then we get to an editor’s note at the end:

“Editor’s note: Though the identity of the man who killed 13 people at the American Civic Association in 2009 is public record and has been widely circulated, the Press & Sun-Bulletin has chosen not to include his name or likeness in these articles.”

Yeah, I noticed that. A quick Net search reveals this at Wikipedia:

“Jiverly Antares Wong, a 41-year-old naturalized American citizen from Vietnam, entered the facility and shot 17 people…”

Of course we don’t need the editor’s note or an article identifying the shooter to know why they censored his identity. This is merely a rare case in which they are relatively explicit about their censorship.

(What goes on the minds of people who censor news stories, then wonder why those news stories are forgotten? I can’t even imagine what it’s like to be that stupid.)

Even people who aren’t aware of egregious cases like this know the media does things like this all the time. And so we read and watch the media the way people in North freakin’ Korea read and watch their media.

And so we take another step into the psychology of totalitarianism.

Hilariously Grandiose Commentary on the Gay NFL Guy

Back in July, Las Vegas Raiders defensive end Carl Nassib announced that he is homosexual, thus becoming the first active NFL player to do so. The commentary on this was over the top, as one would expect in CURRENT YEAR. Here are three examples.

Frank Bodani, York Daily Record
https://www.ydr.com/story/sports/college/penn-state/football/2021/06/22/nfl-tampa-bay-buccaneers-bruce-arians-calls-carl-nassib-a-role-model/5303435001/

“He may well become a beacon for acceptance, in light of his historic Monday announcement regarding his sexual orientation.”

Right, because our society doesn’t have enough acceptance of homosexuality. Meanwhile, back in reality, gay couples are profligately featured on television, both in the programming and in advertisements.

What involves greater risk – THESE DAYS, NOT 100 YEARS AGO – saying you’re homosexual or saying you’re anti-homosexual?

PS: “historic.” Oh, shut up.

“Arians, a York High graduate, owns the most diverse staff in the NFL. His Super Bowl-winning Bucs are the only team with four African-American coordinators and two full-time female coaches.”

Have I been dosed with enough hallucinogens to fell a horse, or did this guy just suggest that there aren’t enough blacks in the NFL?

Then we get a quote from Nassib’s former coach at Penn State, James Franklin:

“Carl’s brave announcement will forge a path for others to be true to their authentic self.”

FOR FUCK’S SAKE! Sometimes I feel like I could handle the propaganda blast if it weren’t so intelligence-insulting. Stop saying that coming out in 2021 is “brave”!

Bodani provides this side note:

“Franklin, meanwhile, is the first African-American head coach in Penn State history.”

Franklin is Penn State coach, and not Joe Paterno, because Paterno was fired for covering up the gay child sex assaults that happened under his watch.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penn_State_child_sex_abuse_scandal
Do an article on that gay guy, Bodani!

Mike Freeman, USA Today
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/columnist/mike-freeman/2021/06/21/carl-nassib-coming-out-nfl-history-save-lives/5298945001/

The headline: “Carl Nassib’s coming out doesn’t just make history. Raiders DL [defensive lineman] could save lives.”

Oh for fuck’s sake! “Could save lives.” This is the most grandiose thing you could say. If you’re a leftist, notice that your “thought leaders” aren’t even trying to hide the fact that they’re just trolling you now.

The article begins,
“To fully understand just how brave, how stunning, how historic it is…”
GOD! HELP US! PLEASE! Not so much from the gay as from the screaming insults to our intelligence!

Reality check: In 2021, Nassib’s announcement is not in the least brave, not in the least stunning, and not in the least historic.

So brave! Meanwhile, back in reality, it’s literally the safest thing that a white male could do. He can’t change himself to a female and he can’t change himself to black, so announcing that he’s gay is the only way he can acquire political correctness points.

Actually, according to the reigning ideology, he could change himself to female by simply announcing that he’s female. OK, so it’s one of the two safest things he could do. Being safe, huddling behind an identity politics politically correct SJW victim shield is, speaking precisely, the exact opposite of brave. In our society it is the very definition of riskless playing it safe.

So of course the left claims that it’s “brave,” with their perverted sexual fetish for saying the exact opposite of the truth.

Freeman continues,

“All of those things [“hate,” etc.] likely forced a legion of NFL players to stay cloaked and hide who they truly were. They couldn’t publicly say they were gay because they might be physically attacked in the locker room. Or cut by the team. Or any number of other things that could have destroyed them or their careers.”

“Might be,” “could have…” Typically, the left is trying to get people outraged about things that never actually happened.

“Former NFL player Roy Simmons came out after his NFL career. When he published a memoir in 2006, the NFL denied his application for a radio row Super Bowl credential.”

Bullshit. It’s not clear what this means, but it seems Simmons requested press credentials for the 2006 Superbowl… three days before it (see below). Freeman nastily implies that Simmons’s request was denied because he was homosexual. He offers no evidence to support this claim. He uses the slimy phrasing “When he published a memoir in 2006, the NFL denied his application…” No, it wasn’t denied “when” he published his book. Slimy insinuations without evidence from the left. I’ve been studying leftists for decades and they still disgust me.

Per Wikipedia’s article on Simmons: “In 2006, three days before the Super Bowl, Simmons requested a media credential and two tickets to the game. The NFL denied his request, saying that it had received too many similar requests to accommodate all of them.”

Well, yes, I imagine that the requests for free tickets to the Superbowl— the largest sporting event in the US— far outstrip their availability. Especially if you don’t ask until three days before it! By the way, Wikipedia also mentions that Simmons tried to get all victimy about this, with the help of… wait for it… Gloria Allred, the ambulance-chasing lawyer who is so frequently on the scene when there’s a leftist cause to be litigated.

“What Nassib has done is help make being gay in the NFL less something to fear. But it’s bigger than even that. His announcement may have saved lives.”

LOL.

“Maybe a troubled LGBTQ teen, some of whom contemplate suicide, according to surveys, will see Nassib’s words and…”

LOL.

NFL practice squad gay Michael Sam “has said in interviews that the first time he truly understood the power of coming out was after a girl told him his announcement saved her life. She had been bullied and had been on suicide watch.”

Uh-huh.

“‘I decided to be the shield and the sword,’ Sam said…”

OK, well thanks for not getting too grandiose or anything.

NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell refuses to be outdone in terms of breathless rhetoric:
https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2021/06/21/roger-goodell-nfl-is-proud-of-carl-nassib-for-courageously-sharing-his-truth/

“The NFL family is proud of Carl for courageously sharing his truth today,” Goodell said in a statement. “Representation matters. We share his hope that someday soon statements like his will no longer be newsworthy as we march toward full equality for the LGBTQ+ community. We wish Carl the best of luck this coming season.”

“The NFL family.” Ugh. Shut up, Goodell.

“is proud of Carl” For what? Being homosexual? How is that an accomplishment?

“for courageously sharing his truth” It’s not courageous! Nothing is safer in CURRENT YEAR than announcing that one is homosexual! Stop lying!

Since being homosexual is not an accomplishment (as admitted by the “gay community” themselves, since they say they’re born gay and can’t help it) there’s no way to praise being homosexual other than by pivoting, i.e. changing the subject. In our society in CURRENT YEAR, the pivot is to claiming that it’s dangerous to announce that one is homosexual (as if) and so such announcements are “brave.” Ugh. Just shut up, you intelligence-insulting douchebags.

Ukraine: Biden’s Admission on Video

Biden on video in 2018, bragging about pressuring Ukraine to shut down an investigation involving his son. Biden boasts that he told the Ukrainian government,

“If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money. Well son of a bitch. He got fired!”

That’s it for that.


Media notes:

For the most part they’ve been horribly dishonest, of course. Yet surprisingly, a lot of the usual suspects are letting the truth about Biden’s quote slip out.

Even the Washington Post has run this story, complete with the damning quote. Wow.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/09/24/democrats-investigation-might-do-more-hurt-biden-than-trump/

So did The Atlantic. Of course they surround Biden’s quote with “the real villain here is Trump” bullshit, but still!
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/09/biden-trump-corruption/598705/

Biden told the story himself at a Council on Foreign Relations event in 2018:

“I said, nah, I’m not going to—or, we’re not going to give you the billion dollars. They said, you have no authority. You’re not the president. The president said—I said, call him. I said, I’m telling you, you’re not getting the billion dollars. I said, you’re not getting the billion. I’m going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours. I looked at them and said: I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money. Well, son of a bitch. He got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time.”

To summarize, Biden threatened to withhold aid if the prosecutor wasn’t fired, and he was. Importantly, Biden was not freelancing, but was acting as a representative of President Barack Obama.

Mother Jones provides the Biden quote, though again, of course surrounded by “the real villain here is Trump” agitprop:

The Hunter Biden Timeline

Joe Biden later told the story of Shokin’s firing like this: “I looked at them and said: ‘I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money.’ Well, son of a bitch. He got fired.

The extended version of the video, almost an hour, is at RealClearPolitics.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/09/27/flashback_2018_joe_biden_brags_at_cfr_meeting_about_withholding_aid_to_ukraine_to_force_firing_of_prosecutor.html?src=ilaw
Biden’s relevant statements start between the 52 and 53 minute points (the link defaults the video to a minute or so before the good stuff begins). Biden boasts that while in Ukraine,

I was supposed to announce that there was another billion-dollar loan guarantee. And I had gotten a commitment from Poroshenko and from Yatsenyuk that they would take action against the state prosecutor. And they didn’t.

I said, I’m telling you, you’re not getting the billion dollars. I said, you’re not getting the billion. I’m going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours. I looked at them and said: I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money. Well, son of a bitch. (Laughter.) He got fired.

I usually avoid the 4D chess thing, but in this case I think that’s what happened. Trump knew about this video before he spoke to the Ukranian President, of course. He was practically daring the Dems to open up this can of worms. And they did.

Leftists, firing a laser at a mirror: “Oww! Fucking Trump!”

A Small Example of Liberal BS

Just weighing in here for a second while this is still fresh. This is just a small example of liberal media BS, but so easily exposed.

Via Vox Day I found this Hollywood Reporter piece. It quotes Bob Iger, the CEO of Disney, as saying he doubts the company would continue to shoot movies in Georgia if the restrictions on abortion in the state are implemented, because too many Disney employees would be opposed to it.

(By the way, this is absolutely remarkable public image management for Disney, of all corporations: As a pro-abortion company. Seriously, Iger?)

Hollywood Reporter then says:

“Disney’s prospective withdrawal from production in Georgia would be a huge blow to the state. Recently, Disney’s Marvel Studios filmed portions of both Black Panther and Avengers: Endgame in Georgia.”

How does this belch of threat display stand up against actual fact?

Short version: I checked, and the entire budget of End Game – making no attempt to sound out how much of it actually ended up in Georgia’s economy – amounts to a tiny fraction of one percentage point of Georgia’s economy. How tiny? Only 6/100 of one percent!

In technical terms, quantities this small are called: LOL.

Not only is it not going to be “a huge blow to the state,” it wouldn’t even be noticed.

Details with data sources below.

What the left is trying to do on this matter – not just in this little article – is simply threaten, to puff themselves up like an animal confronted by a predator and hope that the bluff works.

Another way of putting it: This is trying to apply Alinsky’s dictum “Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have.” So again: Bluff.

How I exposed the BS (it wasn’t hard to do):

1. According to the file handily provided by the Commerce Department at https://www.bea.gov/data/gdp/gdp-state, Georgia’s state GDP in 2018 was 2.9% of US GDP.

2. Per the Federal Reserve System, https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYGDP, U.S. GDP in 2018, as of the most current estimate, was $20.24 trillion. That times 0.029 = $587 billion.

3. Per Google, End Game’s total budget was $356 million. Obviously they didn’t spend all of that in Georgia, but let’s suppose they did, just for fun. Then the fraction of Georgia’s GDP that amounted to was

356 mill/587 bill = 0.0006.

That is, about 6 hundredths of one percentage point.

And that’s if the movie’s entire budget was spent in Georgia! How much was actually spent there? Who knows, but a big chunk of the budget is certainly salaries for Chris Evans, Scarlett Johansson, Robert Downey Jr., etc. One piece of scuttlebutt puts Downey’s earnings for the film at $75 million. Those paychecks go to the actors, not the citizens of the state.

Does the “reporter” who wrote this know that it’s false? Well, either he does, and wrote it anyway, or at the very least he wrote it with an absolute lack of concern for whether it’s true or false. If he cared he would have checked first.

It really is remarkable how shameless and unhesitant liberal reporters are to just make stuff up with no concern for its truth.

So often their bluffs rely on most readers being to busy or too trusting or whatever to check them. But sometimes it only takes a little checking to kick the crap out of their sad little narratives.

Reddit deletes 300,000-member Qanon forum

The title is self-explanatory. Obviously this is important enough to be its own post. But there isn’t much to add, which is why it’s a short post.

(I’m a Q skeptic, but that is really not the point.)

https://www.neonrevolt.com/2018/09/14/surviving-the-onslaught-fighting-for-victory-patriotsawoken-voat-qanon-greatawakening/

Commentary at Vox Popoli:
http://voxday.blogspot.com/2018/09/surviving-onslaught.html

If you’re on the right and you can, I’d signal boost this. Let’s see if we can Streisand the Orwellian shitbags.

Press weeps over deportation of immigrant who shot someone

Oh, boo hoo, we’re so sad because a man who committed first-degree assault is going to be sent home!

And note that the “journalists” don’t tell you the details of the assault:

He shot someone.

Twice.

That little detail was regarded as unimportant for readers to know, for some reason.

Illustrating that there’s no lie so brazen that a lefty won’t tell it, a local School Board President described the trigger-happy green carder as a “law-abiding citizen.” This about a man who is definitely, unambiguously, not a citizen, and not law-abiding. He in fact (1) pled guilty to a shooting, and (2) is an immigrant who was awarded a green card but never even applied for citizenship. So I guess the message is, “He has been totally law-abiding… since he tried to kill someone!”

The good news is that he was eventually deported back to Haiti:

From http://www.whec.com/news/haitian-man-deportation-decade-list-rochester-reginald-castel/4593960/

Speaking Saturday, school officials said Castel has a clean record besides the assault [Un Fucking Believeable] and even the victim of the attack wants him to stay.

“The one person he was engaged in has signed an affidavit that said, ‘I have moved on with my life, and he is my friend, and I want him to move on with his life,’” said Rochester City School Board President Van White.

That’s nice, but I don’t want immingrants who run around shooting people in my country.

And the victim obviously wasn’t feeling too sanguine about being shot back when it happened, or he would have refused to press charges and/or would have pleaded with the court for clemency when it went to trial.

By the way, that use of the word “citizen” by the local politician is not accidental. The left is deliberately trying to destroy the distinction between “citizen” and “someone who is currently standing on US soil.” Obama did this, e.g., when he told anchor baby Gina Rodriguez that anyone who votes is automatically a citizen.

In the linked video, the outrage starts around the 3:22 mark, where she starts by whining that illegals are fearful of voting. Good, you fucking asshole, they should be afraid to vote. It’s not legal for them to vote! It’s not even legal for them to be in the country!

Then the vile subhuman that goes by the name Barack Obama says, “When you vote, you are a citizen.”

No they aren’t, Obama, you piece of filth!

BONUS: Snopes says this statement by Obama never happened and rates it ‘FALSE.” They do this even though they provide a link to the video, presumably because they know that their leftist readers, faced with a choice between their own eyes and ears or leftist propaganda, will believe leftist propaganda.

Mr. President, Ignore the “Chiiiiiillllldren!” Rhetoric

The media will of course trot out utterly dishonest polls saying that 128% of Americans hate the current policy of separating invaders from their children. These polls will be bullshit, of course. Just ignore them, as always.

And if someone doesn’t want to be separated from your kids, well, then don’t invade other nations, assholes. While bringing your kids with you, no less.

The wording that I’ve seen from the media is encouraging, because it’s so extreme that it shows they really are desperate. Typical wording in the lying Fake News media is something like, “Trump is facing a rapidly rising disastrous firestorm of outrage, even from within his own party, on chiiiilllllldren being separated from their parents!!!” The hysterical tone by itself is enough to reveal that they’re terrified this latest propaganda offensive won’t work. They want you to cave in quickly, before everyone gets bored and moves on to the next manufactured outrage du jour.

No, you’re not facing a “firestorm of outrage” from anyone. The Left’s outrage is fake, as always. And you’re certainly not facing outrage from within your own party. With tens of millions of Republicans, they can always find a few Republicans to quote as saying, “I’m against this!” Just ignore it. Remember what issue got you elected to the White House.

Actually, I’m not sure what the Left is hoping to accomplish anyway. What good does it do them if the invaders are incarcerated, but with their kids? I don’t know, maybe they’re just looking for something to point to as a victory to improve their base’s morale for November. Deny them that.

Anyway, the Left’s turn to this new propaganda line is a good sign. It means that even the Left is starting to realize that the “You’re raaaaacist!” stuff has failed. Thus the search for a new propaganda line and the turn to “What about the chiiiiiilllllldren!?” That they’ve resorted to that is a sign that we’ve got them on the run. Keep it up!

You know the Left is desperate when they’re resorting to rhetoric that was openly mocked by The Simpsons back in the 1990s, LOL:

It’s almost impossible to overstate what a victory this change in rhetoric is. I never thought that I would see in my lifetime the Left abandoning “That’s racist!” And now they’ve not only abandoned that, but they’ve abandoned it on the immigration issue!

We really have them on the run!

Hold fast!

Leftist B.S. on the Tommy Robinson story

Tommy Robinson is the English man who recently was prosecuted and imprisoned by the English government because he was standing outside a courtroom covering a trial of Muslim rape gang members. The leftist party line on this is that it is a routine practice which always applies in rape trials. This propaganda line is simply horseshit.

Commenter at Vox Pop:

The gagging orders that are now being routinely placed on cases involving Muslim Rape gangs, have nothing to do with protecting the child victims, and absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with preventing their trials from being compromised.

Here in Britain we have all seen dozens of high profile rape cases over the past few years and every single one of them was relentlessly covered in minute detail by the press, before, during and after the trials.

So why are these cases being treated so differently from cases sush as the Max Clifford trial, the Rolf Harris trial or the many many trials involving football players that were beamed into our living rooms night after night?

Indeed, at YouTube, if you type
Max Clifford trial
into the search box, you get several results that support this claim. One of the videos is titled,
“Max Clifford is surrounded by media as he arrives at court”
and it shows exactly that. As if to emphasize the brazenness of the lie, the end of the video shows a couple of police pushing videographers out of Clifford’s way (“Everybody out of the way! Step back!”), so it can’t be argued that the police were unaware of the crowd of reporters around Clifford.

Similar results at YouTube are obtained for the search
Rolf Harris trial
which gives you, e.g., a video titled,
“Rolf Harris Arrives At Court For Assault Trial”
and the video shows several people with cameras and video cameras, as well as of course the person who was taking the video that we’re watching.

The leftist party line on Robinson, that he was merely prosecuted in the normal way, for things that are prosecuted as a matter of standard procedure, is a lie. No, he was prosecuted – persecuted – because he was discussing something the English government wants kept silent.

Tommy Robinson and Increasingly Brazen Government

Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have the exact measure of the injustice and wrong which will be imposed on them. – Frederick Douglass

In case you haven’t heard the Tommy Robinson story yet: Several days ago Robinson, an English citizen, was standing near a courthouse where a jury was deliberating in a trial about Muslim groups’ gang rapes of English girls. Robinson had his cell phone out, filming the courthouse and asking defendants questions as they entered. The police arrested Robinson on the pretext that this violated UK law about a fair trial – though they haven’t done this in similar cases.

The actual story here is what happened next; more on that below. But first I must note that the National Review, cucked as always, tries to justify the arrest:

“Some supporters of Robinson have been pointing out that there have been reporters outside the trials of celebrities accused of child abuse (Rolf Harris, for instance). But the comparison isn’t exact. It is exceptionally difficult to put reporting restrictions on the trial of a household name…”

Bullshit. Just do exactly the same thing: Arrest any reporters who try it.

But the arrest by itself is not really the story. The story is this:

After less than five minutes of a hearing without a jury, a judge sentenced Robinson to 13 months in prison. The judge also issued an injunction forbidding any media from reporting on the fact that Robinson had been arrested, given a meaningless no-jury four-minute “trial,” and thrown into prison for more than a year.

In other words, the English government disappeared a citizen. They seized him, threw him in prison with no trial, and threatened the media into silence about it.

Needless to say, people concerned with civil liberties were alarmed, and got around the censorship and lit up the Net. But UK media sources were gagged. They were forbidden from even saying the man’s name.

Finally, a few days later, under immense political pressure, the English government lifted the gag order. But Robinson is still in prison for 13 months.

Some relevant links:

PowerLineBlog:
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2018/05/bruce-bawer-the-tommy-robinson-affair.php

Gateway Pundit:
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/05/orwells-nightmare-articles-about-tommy-robinsons-arrest-rapidly-scrubbed-from-the-internet/

The Rebel:
https://www.therebel.media/let_us_report_on_tommy_robinson

And the left’s reaction? The left-wing media’s typical reaction was “For some reason, right-wingers are concerned about the Tommy Robinson thing.”(I’m not going to link them, but you can easily find the links yourself).

Time magazine’s headline: Why Is the Global Hard Right Upset About Tommy Robinson?
(If you’re alarmed by governments disappearing their citizens, apparently you’re “hard right.”)

Financial Times: How Tommy Robinson won the support of the global alt-right.

Just to make sure the point is clear, The Guardian weighs in with this breathtakingly Orwellian headline:
Tommy Robinson is no martyr to freedom of speech.

If you’re too young to have solidified political allegiances yet, ponder that: The left is now running interference for governments that jail their citizens secretly and without trial. And they’re calling people who are alarmed about this “right-wingers.” I’m pleased the left is conceding that the right is more concerned about civil liberties than the left… but how sad that that’s true in the first place. This shouldn’t be a right/left thing; it should be a sane thing.


And what about England?

The English media were incredibly craven about this. They should have defied the judge’s blackout and fully reported the story in all detail, while emphasizing the fact that the government would soon censor the story and presumably drag the media people off to prison. “When this story disappears from the Internet, you will know that police have raided our location, or at least threatened our Internet service provider into removing this page.” When that actually happened, then all their readers would be alerted to the censorship.

We can no longer just cave in to this sort of thing; it’s time to “push the contradictions,” as the Left used to say.

I’m disgusted by the craven cowardice of the English in this matter. They let their girls be raped and don’t do anything about it. And they let the government get away with censorship as a ringing slap across the face, adding insult to injury. What other nation would allow its girls to be raped by hordes of hostile foreigners, without doing anything to the rapists or the government officials who aided the rapes?

No other nation in the world would submit to this without many government officials swinging from lampposts.

Englishmen will never be slaves “Go ahead and rape English girls; we’re too craven to do anything about it.”