The Government’s Attack on the First Amendment / American Pravda: Elon Musk, Kanye West, and Much Riskier Targets
DEFEAT CAPITALISM AND ITS DEADLY SPAWN, IMPERIALISM
ecological murder •
Ron Unz
UNZ REVIEW
November 21, 2022
ANNOTATED BY PATRICE GREANVILLE
Ron Unz
UNZ REVIEW
November 21, 2022
ANNOTATED BY PATRICE GREANVILLE
Reflections on anti-censorship battles.
PLUS SPECIAL ADDENDUM WITH A COMPLETE GUIDE TO THE HUNTER BIDEN LAPTOP IMBROGLIO BY BRETT REDMAYNE-TITLEY
Although it’s too soon to be sure, the early signs are not looking good for Elon Musk’s $44 billion purchase of Twitter, thereby demonstrating once again how easily the concentrated power of the media can destroy those whom it turns against.
The South African-born Tech entrepreneur entered the fray having several seemingly huge advantages. He already ranked as the wealthiest person in the world by a considerable margin. His Tesla Motor Company, constituting the bulk of his fortune, pioneered the electric vehicles that have become a major status symbol of affluent liberals, and despite a considerable decline in its stock, was still comparable in value to the combined total of the world’s next half-dozen automobile manufacturers. He simultaneously served as CEO of SpaceX, America’s best hope for continued domination of space, and its associated Starlink satellite network had recently proven itself a huge factor in modern warfare. Musk was not only lauded as an enormous technological hero, but he had also accumulated considerable media influence of his own, with his 118 million followers on Twitter probably giving him the reach of a major television celebrity or even an entire broadcast network.
Indeed, Twitter had become so important to him that earlier this year he boldly offered to buy the struggling social media giant and take it private. A decade ago, a leading Twitter executive had memorably described his company as representing “the free speech wing of the free speech party,” and Musk seemingly intended to roll back the mounting tide of censorship and restore it to that position.
For generations “free speech” had been one of the most universally cherished American values, but after Donald Trump used the power of his free speech on Twitter to unexpectedly win the White House, those prevailing sentiments very rapidly changed, and the need to exclude “fake news” and suppress “hate speech” became the accepted priority of all right-thinking individuals obedient to the narrative of the mainstream media. Beginning with a few extreme cases here and there, the resulting Twitter purges grew exponentially, until by early 2020 these had finally claimed the sitting President of the United States; and powerful elements of American society were very concerned that Musk might try to reverse that process. So his takeover of Twitter, substantially funded from his own pocket, was viewed by many as a horrifying and potentially dangerous threat to American values, with Musk himself increasingly portrayed as a Bond-style super-villain by the buzzing media beehive, an interloper whose nefarious plans had to be frustrated at all costs.
Twitter had already been losing money and the $14 billion in debt Musk took on to help fund his purchase made the situation far worse. Once the media painted him as a dangerous bad-thinker and Twitter suddenly became “controversial” his timorous advertisers—who provided nearly all of its existing revenue—began dropping away, with each public desertion being loudly broadcast by the hostile media megaphone.
All of these major blows came despite Musk’s partial reversal of his self-proclaimed “free speech absolutism,” as he promised to maintain many of Twitter’s existing restrictions and except for a certain former President only reinstated the most milquetoast of purged Tweeters. Musk’s U-turn immediately drew angry denunciations from some of the same individuals who had previously championed his takeover.
When expenses rise and revenue falls, financial problems result, and journalists reported that Musk had privately warned of the risk of bankruptcy as he prepared his drastic cuts to Twitter’s bloated workforce. Meanwhile, most of the company’s previous senior executives were fired or quit.
Earlier this month, Musk had intentionally slashed Twitter’s headcount by 50%, but on Thursday his media critics gleefully reported that one-third of his remaining staff had suddenly quit, with many of his crucial software engineering teams having almost totally disappeared. The front-page headline in the hostile New York Times was “Twitter Teeters on the Edge” and it darkly suggested that the company might be entering a software death-spiral, hardly encouraging news for the remaining corporate advertisers who were so necessary for its survival. I’ve never much used Twitter myself, but if I’d invested years of my time and effort in building up millions of followers, I’d be feeling pretty worried right now.
Perhaps Musk will once again ultimately triumph against the odds, and successfully create the universal WeChat-type service he has envisioned. But right now, I think it much more likely that the seemingly fragile social media giant will continue to decline then ultimately wind up in different hands. And if our media can so quickly and easily crush the aspirations of the wealthiest man in the world, perhaps costing him and his financial backers the $44 billion they had invested, who in the future would dare risk another such challenge?
Perhaps by coincidence, a somewhat similar controversy had recently played out in the case of a different high-profile individual, the billionaire black rapper and fashion designer Kanye West. Although I’d previously had only the vaguest impression of him, he was apparently a towering international celebrity, as well as being among the wealthiest black Americans who had ever lived, while having tens of millions of followers on Twitter and other networks.
Apparently for some reason or other, he became angry and agitated over what he saw as the overwhelming Jewish influence in the worlds of business and media, and began loudly saying so in various venues and on his social networks. As might be expected, the media reaction was swift and devastating, portraying him as a moral leper, and thereby forcing most of his business partners to cut their ties, often at enormous financial cost. Apparently 25% of the profits of footware giant Adidas came from West’s line of sneakers, but they abandoned the longtime deal at a total cost of almost $650 million when their media masters proclaimed it as a fundamental issue of morality. At the other end of the spectrum, Goodwill Industries announced that they would no longer offer their impoverished clientele the donated cast-offs associated with such a vile anti-Semite. The rapper’s longtime bank even closed his accounts and would no longer provide a haven for his money.
As the heavy blows suffered by Musk, West, and others have demonstrated, the media has enormous potential striking power, but creating an outlet that can effectively wield it is far from an easy task, and merely providing heavy resources may be insufficient.
The immediate result of all these coordinated blows was that the bulk of West’s large fortune suddenly evaporated, while his (Jewish) personal trainer publicly declared that if he continued his bad behavior the erstwhile billionaire might end up spending the rest of his life heavily drugged and imprisoned in a mental institution. Almost none of his fellow black celebrities rallied to his side, or if they did, I didn’t hear about it. The story soon dropped from the media, perhaps permanently taking with it the once-iconic global black celebrity.
West’s high-profile transgressions had put our ideological watchmen on full alert and this probably accounted for the new controversy that soon engulfed black basketball star Kyrie Irving, who ran into a media buzz-saw for merely Tweeting out a link to an Afrocentric documentary available on Amazon. The controversial claims made in that video riled up the ADL, and Irving quickly offered public apologies and a payment of $500,000 to salvage his sports career. But that tentative deal unraveled due to his subsequent impolitic remarks, and he was suspended from basketball, while his personal line of sneakers was cancelled by Nike. Yet another abject lesson proving that even the highest and the mightiest should think twice before exercising their right to free speech. The media creates reality and if they decide to declare you a target, you quickly become a human pin-cushion.
S I D E B A R
Tucker Carlson: Twitter documents show 'systemic violation of the First Amendment'
Fox News host Tucker Carlson reacts to the bombshell report Elon Musk released about Twitter's censorship of the Hunter Biden story on 'Tucker Carlson Tonight.'
Watch the latest video at foxnews.com |
Back in the 1990s, Bill Gates was much in the news, with his $100 billion fortune then ranking him as the wealthiest man in the world, a position he had held for so many years that it seemed permanent. His Windows operating system enjoyed a near-monopoly on all personal computers, so his products controlled the technological infrastructure of every country, just as every writer and every financier depended upon his ubiquitous Word and Excel programs. Given such potent assets, he was sometimes half-jokingly described as the most powerful person in the world, having clout that dwarfed that of any President or Pope.
While I did not necessarily dispute such an appraisal, I would always point out the severe limitations of his position. I proposed a thought-experiment in which the Monarch of Microsoft carelessly uttered some highly untoward views on any one of a number of sufficiently touchy subjects. For all his money and influence, he probably would have been quickly annihilated, fried to a crisp by a concentrated media blast and then overwhelmed by the massive wave of public revulsion that it generated, quite possibly losing his company and much of his gigantic fortune in the process. Bill Gates might have been powerful, but the media could have destroyed him at a stroke, snuffing him out like a candle in a gale-force wind. The current fates of Elon Musk, Kanye West, and others suggest that I was probably correct.
The ADL seems to have played a central role in all these current controversies discussed above, with Musk quickly bowing to its authority and soliciting its advice, while the organization led the successful attacks on West and Irving. Such developments were hardly surprising given its notorious reputation, but the ADL’s reaction to my own past activities had followed a strikingly different trajectory. As I wrote four years ago:
In our modern era, there are surely few organizations that so terrify powerful Americans as the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) of B’nai B’rith, a central organ of the organized Jewish community.
Mel Gibson had long been one of the most popular stars in Hollywood and his 2004 film The Passion of the Christ became among the most profitable in world history, yet the ADL and its allies destroyed his career, and he eventually donated millions of dollars to Jewish groups in desperate hopes of regaining some of his public standing. When the ADL criticized a cartoon that had appeared in one of his newspapers, media titan Rupert Murdoch provided his personal apology to that organization, and the editors of The Economist quickly retracted a different cartoon once it came under ADL fire. Billionaire Tom Perkins, a famed Silicon Valley venture capitalist, was forced to issue a heartfelt apology after coming under ADL criticism for his choice of words in a Wall Street Journal column. These were all proud, powerful individuals, and they must have deeply resented being forced to seek such abject public forgiveness, but they did so nonetheless. The total list of ADL supplicants over the years is a very long one.
Given the fearsome reputation of the ADL and its notorious hair-trigger activists, there was a widespread belief that my small webzine would be completely annihilated when I first launched my recent series of controversial articles in early June by praising the works of historian David Irving, a figure long demonized by the ADL. Yet absolutely nothing happened.
During the next three months my subsequent articles directly challenged nearly every hot-button issue normally so fiercely defended by the ADL and its lackeys, so much so that a friendly journalist soon described me as the “Kamikaze from California.” Yet despite my 90,000 words of text and the 13,000 comments I had attracted, the continuing silence of the ADL was absolutely deafening. Meanwhile, my articles were read more than half a million times…
When divine wrath fails to smite the heretic and terrifying enforcers of official dogma seem to have suddenly lost their taste for battle, others gradually begin to take notice and may grow emboldened. Eventually leading pro-Russian and Libertarian websites such as Russia Insider and LewRockwell began republishing some of my most controversial American Pravda articles, thus bringing my factual claims to the attention of broader audiences. After the conclusion of my series, I began directly ridiculing my strangely timorous ADL opponents, publishing a short column entitled “Has the ADL Gone Into Hiding?” which led the redoubtable Paul Craig Roberts to describe me as “the bravest man I know.”
Apparently the combination of all these factors at long last grew too worrisome for the ADL, and stirring from their secret hiding place, its activists have now finally released a short and rather milquetoast response to my material, one which hardly much impresses me. A few days ago, they Tweeted out their column, together with a photo of their new nemesis.
California businessman Ron Unz has long been funding anti-Israel activists. Now, he’s embracing hardcore #antiSemitism, denying the Holocaust & claiming Jews run the media & worship Satan. Learn more from our experts: https://t.co/KnngID3YCh
— ADL (@ADL) October 8, 2018
Those were the opening paragraphs of my response to that foolhardly ADL attack, which had provided me an excellent opportunity to publish a lengthy article recounting the extremely sordid history of that powerful organization. (Italics, ours) My piece presented many important facts previously only little known and drew considerable interest, eventually being read nearly 50,000 times:
-
American Pravda: The ADL in American Society
From the Leo Frank Case to the Present Day
Ron Unz • The Unz Review • October 15, 2018 • 7,300 Words
After that initial exchange, the ADL apparently reconsidered its media strategy and concluded that discretion was the better part of valor, slinking back into hiding. Indeed, the highly counter-productive consequences of any challenge either to myself or to my publication became so obvious that they seem to have issued a general edict, forbidding any mention whatsoever in all the media outlets under their editorial influence. Their leadership rightly realized that although we might suffer from their attacks, by drawing much greater attention to our information, such actions might prove severely damaging or even fatal to their long-term interests.
The reality of this presumably ADL-enforced media blockade became apparent in 2020, when the SPLC and its journalistic allies launched a ferocious wave of coordinated attacks aimed at forcing the resignation of Stephen Miller, perhaps the most hated member of the Trump Administration, a drive that came just a few months before the presidential election. The central charge against Miller was that in his private emails he had promoted several controversial posts by blogger Steve Sailer, all of which had originally been published on our website.
Such attacks typically rely upon guilt by association, and the Sailer pieces in question had run on the same page as articles promoting Holocaust Denial and various other exceptionally controversial topics, so the connection was irrefutable. And if those other issues had been publicly linked to Miller, his political fall would have become certain. But the lengthy research report denouncing Miller and the pieces he had endorsed scrupulously avoided any mention of our website or the vastly more controversial material it contained, and as a consequence Miller managed to survive. Apparently maintaining the prohibition against any hint of our existence was far more important than claiming the political scalp of a top Trump advisor. To the ADL and its allies, we constituted a terrifying Lord Voldemort, and merely mentioning our name might result in their destruction.
-
Ideological Purges and the Lord Voldemort Effect
Ron Unz • The Unz Review • July 14, 2020 • 3,900 Words
As the heavy blows suffered by Musk, West, and others have demonstrated, the media has enormous potential striking power, but creating an outlet that can effectively wield it is far from an easy task, and merely providing heavy resources may be insufficient.
I recently noted the interesting coincidence that our own publication had been launched almost simultaneously with the Intercept, sponsored by Tech billionaire Pierre Omidyar. Lavishly funded and staffed by a crew of all-stars led by renowned investigative reporter Glenn Greenwald, the Intercept seemed certain to transform journalism, but despite the $200 million it has absorbed since 2013, the results have been less than impressive. Indeed, these days our own webzine attracts roughly comparable monthly traffic along with almost twice as much readership time, despite our having suffered under the handicap of total deplatforming by Facebook and deranking by Google.
-
Less Than $200 Million But Also More
Ron Unz • The Unz Review • September 26, 2020 • 2,900 Words
The obvious reason for such a striking mismatch between inputs and outputs is that so much of the Intercept‘s content during the Trump Era and afterwards became almost indistinguishable from what was found on so many other websites, a situation very different from the uniqueness of what we offer.
Over the years, visitors have regularly told me that they are aware of no other publication anywhere on the Internet that provides convenient access to such a wide range of ultra-controversial material across so many different subjects, nor many websites that allow such lightly-moderated discussions in its comment-threads. So perhaps this makes us the rightful heir to the mantle of “the free speech wing of the free speech party.”
Obviously, such an approach has its pluses and minuses, and I personally find a great deal of the material we publish both distasteful and wrong-headed, a failing even more common in the regular flood of the often vituperative comments. But from the beginning, the Mission Statement of this alternative media publication had envisioned that situation, and our primary role has been to serve as a content-distribution channel and commenting platform.
Furthermore, a major reason for launching the publication had been to provide a convenient venue for my own future writings, and in that regard I’ve been very satisfied with the body of work I’ve now produced, mostly over the last four or five years.
Highly controversial material, no matter how persuasive or well-documented, almost inevitably requires considerable time to achieve any broader impact. Next week will mark the tenth anniversary of the publication of my own “Myth of American Meritocracy” article, and the legal challenges it inspired to discriminatory admissions practices at our elite universities have only just now finally reached the Supreme Court, which as a result may soon strike down a half-century of Constitutional support for racial preferences, as I discussed in a recent review article:
-
Challenging Racial Discrimination at Harvard
The Supreme Court Reconsiders Affirmative Action
Ron Unz • The Unz Review • October 31, 2022 • 5,900 Words
Seen in this light, I’m hardly surprised that the far more recent elements of my American Pravda series have not yet produced much visible public impact, though given their exceptionally controversial nature, I suspect they have been quietly discussed in various quarters, as suggested by the millions of total pageviews they have accumulated.
-
American Pravda Series
Ron Unz • The Unz Review • 445,000 Words
Taken as a whole, the series is intended to provide a historical counter-narrative to the major events of the last 100 years, one that vastly differs from what is presented in our standard textbooks or mainstream media outlets, and it does so mostly in a sequence of self-contained, bite-size chunks that can easily be individually digested.
Over the last few years, these articles have attracted tens of thousands of comments, many of them quite substantial and fiercely critical, but after carefully considering the arguments made and the evidence presented, I still feel reasonably sure that perhaps 99% of my published analysis is correct, at least to within the limits of confidence that I had originally expressed. But even if only 10% of my conclusions were correct and 90% were totally mistaken, the impact upon our established understanding of the modern world would still be revolutionary. I’m much less certain when or if such unorthodox perspectives will become generally accepted, but that might eventually happen.
It’s always encouraging to discover that others may sometimes see things in the same way. I was recently contacted by a longtime reader of this website, someone with a strong academic background who later became quite financially successful. Although he’d previously read many of my individual articles when these had appeared over the last few years, once he sat down and devoured the total contents of my six American Pravda print collections, he found the combined impact extremely compelling, and he contacted me, wondering how he could assist the project. After a little discussion, he decided to become a financial sponsor of the website, providing an initial payment of $100,000, with his identity to be kept strictly confidential until he might want it disclosed.
From its inception, I’ve funded the website almost entirely on my own, so his sponsorship was very welcome, especially since it represented hard evidence that others had a high regard for the material we have presented.
Additional financial sponsors would also be very much appreciated, and they should regard any assistance they provide as constituting media venture capital. Their confidential involvement would allow them to support a potentially crucial project with little if any downside risk if certain topics remain controversial and forbidden, but which would provide them with enormous potential credit if the political and ideological winds change. Moreover, any such financial outlays would be merely a tiny sliver of the $200 million spent to fund the Intercept, let alone the tens of billions of dollars now invested in Twitter.
Anyone so interested in becoming a financial sponsor of our publication can contact me at Ron(at)unz(dot)com, while for the more paranoid individuals, I also now have a protonmail account RonUnz(at)protonmail(dot)com, though I seldom use it for anything.
As a perfect example of the upside potential of what I am describing, I still find it quite astonishing that for the last thirty months there has been strong even overwhelming evidence that the global Covid outbreak was the result of an American biowarfare attack against China (and Iran), which has also cost the lives of well over a million Americans, but that virtually no one else anywhere on the Internet has been willing to point to that obvious scenario. Perhaps this climate of total avoidance will continue indefinitely, but if the story does eventually come out it would surely rival the two world wars as among the most significant occurrences in all of human history.
Meanwhile, my efforts on that score continue. My Covid/Biowarfare EBook has been downloaded over 13,000 times and my individual articles have accumulated more than 900,000 pageviews on the Internet, while three of my video podcast interviews from earlier this year have reached nearly 2.3 million views on Rumble, each probably more popular than 99.99% than the other videos on that platform.
-
Covid/Biowarfare Series
Ron Unz • The Unz Review • April 2020-December 2021 • 60,000 Words
Kevin Barrett, FFWN • February 16, 2022 • 15m
Geopolitics & Empire • February 1, 2022 • 75m • SoundCloud Audio
Red Ice TV • February 3, 2022 • 130m
ADDENDUM
By Request: (Part Two) Hunter Biden’s Laptop. The Irony of Election Censorship.
By Brett Redmayne-Titley Sep 30 (2020)
As the author—speaking in Sept. 2020—avers, the laptop revelations should have sunk the Biden candidacy, but, of course, they didn’t, because the massive coverup worked.
Click on the link below to see the special text.
“I encouraged them [The Intercept] to air their disagreements with me by writing their own articles that critique my perspectives and letting readers decide who is right, the way any confident and healthy media outlet would… So censorship of my article, rather than engagement with it, was the path these Biden-supporting editors chose.”- Glenn Greenwald- The Intercept (Resignation letter: Oct 29, 2020)
There are less than twenty-four hours until election day, 2020. With presidential candidate Joseph Biden purportedly within grasp of the reins of power, he is this hour in the deepest trouble of his political career. In the power politics of scandal, minutes can hang like hours and days become the stuff of history. As of this day, Nov 2, 2020, Biden is about to be the different participant of US history, a likely criminal investigation, and the wrath of the American voter. As the author highlighted earlier last week, Biden was then seemingly in deep water due to the mounting allegations of political duplicity. On that day, Wednesday, his only saving grace hinged on the success of the ongoing massive media cover-up by virtually the whole of mainstream– and alternative- media. Biden’s hope was that the voter would remain unaware or disinterested in ascertaining the truth in the final days before to the national election of this Tuesday. It ain’t working. Instead, the continued corroboration of the Biden allegations over the past three days appears to be shaping up to make the Watergate break-in of June 17, 1972, seem like a before bedtime, Biden basement nap. The far too few publications that still feature real journalism, such as the one you are reading now, have helped to force, in just the past three days, the hand of MSM into action that now reluctantly reports the Biden family pay-to-play conspiracy. In doing so, these dedicated publications and their editors have also created a further indictment of MSM and showed themselves by this reflection as the only news services remaining worthy of public trust. Fox News and The New York Post, although instrumental in the initial release and propagation of the allegations, should not be lumped into this distinguished group. Both were the mercenaries for this last-minute Trump hit job and although substantially accurate in this reporting, their agenda is obvious. Ironically, thanks must also be heaped upon MSM. If not for the massive censorship- newspaper, radio, TV, internet and social media– perpetrated by the editorial management of virtually every other American media source, the smell of corruption would not have exponentially increased so rapidly into a stench that the American public -and now MSM- can no longer afford to stay upwind from. In the few days since Wednesday’s article, much additional news of the censored allegations has surfaced. This has not only bolstered the suspicions against Biden but also showed to the awakened reader that this story must be fully investigated. Today, this is no longer mere suspicion. In the minds of the voter, now hours from the election, this is an outrage that will transcend election day no matter the result. The past seventy-two hours of new revelations come in three categories: Increased censorship; continued Corroboration of the previous week’s allegations; and the sudden, albeit reluctant, shift by MSM to finally do its job of reporting. Number three spells Biden’s doom. Despite a large percentage of voters having cast their ballots by mail, for those who have not and are awakening to the growing scandal, who remaining would, tomorrow support, Biden’s candidacy? Win or lose. A Brief Background. Many Americans are, due to this censorship, just now tuning in. Offered here is a very abridged synopsis of the allegations and cover-up as of the article three days ago. The reader is encouraged to delve much further. Joe Biden’s son, Hunter left three laptops for repair with Delaware computer repairman John Paul Mac Isaac and then failed to pick them up, but Mac Isaac discovered information revealing a possible Biden family influence-peddling operation- and Hunters predilection for Kiddie porn- and gave it all to the FBI which buried it, but Mac Isaac had kept a copy of the hard drive and next turned it over to Trump’s key hitman Rudy Giuliani, who gave it to the New York Post, who released the details to the public. Next, a convicted business associate Bevan Cooney, donated his laptop to investigators which contained 26,000 emails, many of which supported the initial claims by the NYP, so much so that Cooney is now in witness protection. Then up stepped Tony Bobulinski, also a Biden business associate who, in a Fox News interview with Tucker Carlson (the highest-rated event in Fox News history) confirmed the revelations of the two previous laptops by providing his own emails that appear to corroborate a direct link to Biden during the time he was VP. Next came the surreptitiously leaked report by Christopher Balding, Associate Professor at Peking University who reportedly is a contributor to the anti-Trump Bloomberg News, on behalf of an anonymous source, who had provided a very detailed sixty-five-page report also linking Biden to the other three sets of allegations. Three days ago, all these four reports were being buried by MSM and alternative media collectively and had not come under the proper microscope of examination. Today, that is no longer the case. The allegations against the Bidens, as this article will highlight, are now very much being substantiated: as is the complicit criminal conspiracy by the breadth of American media. And, the death of Joe Biden’s presidential aspirations. Increased Censorship. On Thursday, Oct 29,2020, the Senate Judiciary Committee convened a special session to draw and quarter the CEOs of Twitter, Facebook, Google: Jack Dorsey, Mark Zuckerberg, and Sundar Pichai, for their willful if not admitted social media censorship. As expected, the Dems on the committee, such as Illinois senator Tammy Duckworth, threw softballs to their campaign donors. However, republican Ted Cruz, in his opener, called the three social media giants “the single greatest threat to free speech in America” and in particular called Twitter the “most egregious.” Taking direct aim at Dorsey he charged, “Mr Dorsey, who the hell elected you and put you in charge of what the media are allowed to report and what the American people are allowed to hear, and why do you persist in behaving as a Democratic super PAC silencing views to the contrary of your political beliefs?” The best Dorsey could do was deflect, offering, “We realized we need to earn trust more… So, I hear the concerns and acknowledge them, but we want to fix it with more transparency.” Dorsey’s statement was, of course, utter bullshit. Twitter instead continued its censorship of all of the New York Post’s investigative coverage for a further three of the final six pre-election days: Sixteen in total. Dorsey’s lie was not lost on the viewers, who have increasingly tuned into Fox News and the NYP. Apparently, many of these people were also Twitter stockholders since after Thursday’s committee hearing Twitter’s share price plummeted more than 5% and was down 18% by Friday. As a succinct example of the complicity of the alternative media blackout, the very public resignation by the co-founder and usually exceptional journalist from The Intercept, Glenn Greenwald, threw gasoline on to the fire regarding media censorship. Greenwald not only released his resignation letter, but also the article within which he had authored his assessment of the Biden charges and which the editorial staff had forced him not to publish and worse, despite the terms of his contract, not to publish elsewhere. This was absolutely outrageous for an investigative news publication featuring itself as alternative. Wrote Greenwald, “I had no objection to their disagreement with my views of what this Biden evidence shows: as a last-ditch attempt to avoid being censored, I encouraged them to air their disagreements with me by writing their own articles that critique my perspectives and letting readers decide who is right, the way any confident and healthy media outlet would.” In one sentence Greenwald summed up the strongest charge against the overall problem with almost all of the American media, stating, “… modern media outlets do not air dissent; they quash it.” Indeed. This reporter can attest to the accuracy of Greenwald’s charge. In reviewing some fifty-plus mainstream and alternative media sources at random in the preparation of this article, only this publication and four others, as of three days ago, had chosen to favour good journalism over blanket censorship. Even the email content sharing website Mail Chimp decided to take the mordida. Just in time for the campaign’s final week Mail Chimp pulled “a Dorsey,” sending to all its customers an outrageous claim to its right to censor anything at his volition, saying that Mail Chimp, “does not allow the distribution of content that is, in our sole discretion, materially false, inaccurate, or misleading, in a way that could deceive or confuse others about important events, topics, or circumstances.” [Emph. Added] This author can attest to the truth of this claim since the article of three days ago was magically eliminated from Mail Chimp that day, as was also the case by Twitter. Also challenging the author’s article of Oct 29, which listed the Biden related allegations, was “Senior Editor,” Gordon Duff of the relatively tiny alternative media news site, Veteran’s Today. He championed his editorial role as a censor in a scathing attack on the author. Asked in reply to, “please provide just one fact that will refute the allegations against Biden,” his one-line refusal spoke volumes. “It is not our job to refute the allegations…It is your job to prove them.” This was already proving too easy. Biden may swing, but so should Dorsey, Zuckerberg, Sundar Pichai, and small fry like Duff. Media editors have cowardly, by this evidence, participated in their own pay-to-play operation. A treason to the obligations of a free press… if not the nation. Corroboration of the Previous Week’s Allegations. The past three days have been very long ones for Joe Biden. On Wed Oct 28, the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee confirmed that the information exposed by former Hunter Biden business associate Tony Bobulinski is legitimate and does connect the former Vice President to his son’s companies and ventures in China and elsewhere. According to Bobulinski, Biden, when he asked him as VP about possible damage control, cited “Plausible Deniability.” On Wednesday, that excuse evaporated right before the eyes of nine million viewers who watched his testimony with Tucker Carlson. Next, on the same day, the FBI acknowledged that it had already launched an investigation, apparently very slowly, into money laundering allegations against Hunter Biden and his uncle, Jim, the brother of the “Big Guy.” This news comes a week after the FBI also admitted, after months of silence, that the contents of Hunter Biden’s laptop provided to them by Mac Isaac has now been subpoenaed by its top Child Porn investigator, Joshua Wilson, and that this investigation is also underway. It will not likely, thanks to growing public awareness, only be limited to Hunter Biden. The detailed report leaked to the press by Christopher Balding, which was initially completely ignored, has also taken on its own life and further exposed the complicity of the media. A supposed NBC news “investigation” of that report, next blew up in the face of NBC. According to NBC, the report’s author name, “Martin Aspen,” is a fabricated identity and his photograph is a “deep fake’ composite generated by artificial intelligence.” This was all true. But, there was one huge problem with this self-serving truth. When the report was first released on Oct 21, Balding who admitted to being the leaker had also immediately made clear that the author’s name was deliberately a nom de plume and that he was only very partially responsible for the report’s contents. Further, the use of the origin, Typhoon Investigations, was also made clear as being part of the need to keep the true source and author anonymous. This investigative report was NBC trying to turn the facts of the matter on their heads in favour of Biden without a bald-faced lie: merely a massive one of near-complete omission. But the legitimacy of the report and damage control for NBC has only increased. What NBC did not expect would be the reaction was for Balding, just two days ago, on Oct 30, to go public about his release of the report. Balding has assured NBC that the report is genuine, that the source, like Bevan Cooney, fears for his/her life, and that they did at the time of the release state this to all concerned about the report’s validity. To protect his source, Balding has made himself available to the press and to investigators. It should be noted that, when reviewing the report, it is remarkably similar in its connections as those of Bobulinski, Mac Isaac, and Cooney. However, it is by far more detailed and professionally produced. So, here we are just one day from the election. The FBI is finally in gear. Twice. The Bobulinski evidence has been scrutinized as legit and neither Joe Biden nor his staff has denied the revelations regarding the contents of the two laptops being held as evidence. Further, Balding’s detailed report that he leaked to the press is growing legs. That’s four for four, all of which the media tried their best to cover-up. As of this day, the chances of an investigation of the Biden clan are rising by the hour. However, as of Saturday, Oct 31, the tide has now turned against Biden because…so has the media! The Main Stream Media Finally Does its Job? Without a media cover-up, Joe Biden is about to become the new Richard Nixon. It should be remembered that for Nixon, it was not the mere burglary of the Watergate hotel by a bumbling crew of party loyalists that took him down, it was the conspiracy to create the cover-up at the highest levels. The first signs of a shift in media loyalty were first delivered by the New York Times reporter Ross Douthat, on Oct 27. All though watered down, apparently, the NYT was suddenly unwilling to continue its participation in this conspiracy and by extension further destroy its already waning respectability. As the first turncoat, the article did summarize, without admission of guilt, the New York Post’s basic allegations. Next, CNN- yes, CNN- the most loyal of DNC media performers allowed its prime-time Jake Tapper to assess that Biden’s Burisma connection “stinks.” But next, eyebrows across the beltway were raised when CNN followed that up with something even more surprising: An opinion piece by Scott Jennings that argue that Trump deserves a second term. This is a tectonic shift by a media outlet that has spent the better part of two years promoting one, and only one, candidate, Joe Biden. As the allegations continue their downhill cascade toward Biden, it would appear that the only chance of salvation for him is now an outright Trump victory on Tuesday night and Trump’s possible choice not to prosecute as he did in 2016 for arch DNC criminal Hillary Clinton. Should Biden win, there is zero chance of his dual loyalty not being used to thwart his presidency. Of course, a Trump win is anathema to the DNC that has executed blood, treasure- and Bernie Sanders- in their collective effort to get Biden to the finish line no matter what. Regardless, the irony of the media’s massive censorship coup against a presidential candidate, instead, thus taking down the other candidate, will be the stuff of political history. Freedom in elections comes with from a vibrant media. Both are as dead as Joe Biden’s aspirations for president. THE END ABOUT THE AUTHOR Brett Redmayne-Titley has spent the last twelve years documenting the "Sorrows of Empire." He has authored over 200 articles all of which have been published and often republished and translated by news agencies worldwide. An archive of his published work can be found at watchingromeburn.uk. He can be contacted at live-on-scene ((@)) gmx.com |
Print this article
Unfortunately, most people take this site for granted.
DONATIONS HAVE ALMOST DRIED UP…
PLEASE send what you can today!
JUST USE THE BUTTON BELOW
[/su_spoiler]
Don’t forget to sign up for our FREE bulletin. Get The Greanville Post in your mailbox every few days.
[newsletter_form]
[premium_newsticker id=”211406″]
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License