Bidengate: The Power of the Media To Lie By Omission

Bidengate: The Power of the Media To Lie By Omission, by an anonymous reader. Bigger than Watergate, copious evidence, yet the Hunter Biden scandal is hardly mentioned in the left’s large echo chamber. Ask your leftist friends what they know about it, and you’ll get a short reply.

Try this query of CNN: . Result: “Your search for Bobulinski did not match any documents.”

Or try Australia’s ABC:  Result: One entry, which, copying NPR in the US, tries to explain the story away without mentioning the proof of payments. It is a story about the last presidential debate, which Bobulinski attended in person and went on camera making statements and answering questions.

Now try this Google query Result:  “About 990,000 results”

Or better, DuckDuckGo: Just read that first page of results!




A verified story with written evidence, including a compromising computer, is not even mentioned on NPR, CNN and the Huffington Post. had one partial entry. The BBC has only one, but it’s a good attempt to cover the story as usual (from before more damaging evidence came to light). The Australian newspaper carried a more full story. Barely a mention (disparaging) by the Sydney Morning Herald and the Age. The South China Post rates its a political scam, while the Times of India doesn’t mention it. South Africa’s Cape Times says “Nothing to see here” after searching for “Bobulinski”, while the Moscow Times says much the same thing. It’s significant news for the Washington Post, DailyMail, and New York Post.



Get news from right wing and neutral sources, and you get one view, generally a more realistic one.

Get news from most of the mainstream media/left and it’s a different story, increasingly and sadly befitting of modern “cancel culture”.  This view reliably promotes the fantasies that the modern left depends on.

The same can happen in reverse, but much less often, as various attempts to analyze this have shown.

Under extreme conditions, all sides resort to varying degrees of propaganda. A significant proportion of Germans used to listen to the BBC during WWII, because they found it more accurate and helpful than the German media at the time.

No wonder no political discussion is possible anymore — we cannot even agree on the facts.

Tucker Carlson Tells Viewers a Package with Biden Documents Sent By Producer from NY to LA Was Tampered with and Contents Went Missing

Tucker Carlson Tells Viewers a Package with Biden Documents Sent By Producer from NY to LA Was Tampered with and Contents Went Missing. This is a worrying development. Tucker tells it best:

The Biden corruption story is breaking new thresholds of poor behavior.

The USA is moving towards the third world, with two incompatible cultures battling it out for supremacy and the country’s elite pushing hard for the woke team. Western traditions can no longer be taken for granted.

The USA is abandoning what made it successful. It is becoming like less successful countries, that are run by wealthy and corrupt elites.

‘Fact checking’ website Snopes on verge of collapse after founder is accused of fraud, lies, and putting prostitutes and his honeymoon on expenses (and it hasn’t told its readers THOSE facts)

‘Fact checking’ website Snopes on verge of collapse after founder is accused of fraud, lies, and putting prostitutes and his honeymoon on expenses (and it hasn’t told its readers THOSE facts). By Alana Goodman.

Fact-checking website Snopes is on the verge of financial collapse after its owner was accused of embezzling company funds to pay for his contentious divorce battle and lavish overseas trips with his new wife, a former Las Vegas escort and porn actress.

The company’s financial woes have gotten so bad that Snopes’ owner David Mikkelson started a crowd-funding website pleading for donations this week, which raised over $500,000 from generous readers in its first day.

But can disclose significant facts which are entirely missing from the fact-checking website’s version of events — including the fraud allegations against Mikkeslon.

Where the left goes to find “truth” was started by David Mikkelson and his ex-wife Barbara in the mid-1990s as a website that debunked myths and urban legends.

In recent years, it has started to delve into the area of politics and ‘fact-checking’ so-called ‘fake news’ stories.

After the presidential election, Snopes was chosen by Facebook to sit on a panel of arbiters who would determine whether news stories posted to the social media site were ‘fake news.’

But at the same time, revealed in December, the two co-founders were involved in a bitter divorce battle in which he was accused of embezzling nearly $100,000 in company funds to spend on personal expenses and prostitutes.

Character is destiny.

Kamala Harris Calls for ‘Reckoning on Racial Injustice in America’

Kamala Harris Calls for ‘Reckoning on Racial Injustice in America’. By Joel Pollack.

Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) told voters in Tucson, Arizona, that she and Joe Biden were fighting for a “long-overdue reckoning on racial injustice in America.” …

Both Harris and Biden have emphasized the idea that the United States is haunted by “systemic racism.”

Apparently her speech contained many lies, such as:

You’d think she’d wait until after the election before scaring voters with calls for racial reckoning. Sounds like the anti-white gloves are coming off early.

hat-tip Stephen Neil

Men and Women Have Never Been More Politically Divided

Men and Women Have Never Been More Politically Divided. By .

Barring a giant polling error, the 2020 election will witness the largest gender gap in partisan preference since women gained the franchise. … Biden’s average lead among women in recent interview polls is about 25 points. … And yet, in those same surveys, Trump leads among men by three points. In 2016, the gender gap in voting preference was 20 points; if current polls hold steady, it will be 28. …

It would be a mistake to attribute this year’s gender gap entirely to Trump’s personal attributes. After all, women have been trending left, as men trend right, for decades now. And this development is not unique to the United States — rather, it is present across nearly all advanced democracies. …

The growing prevalence of singledom among America’s rising generation of women is one of the most potent forces in contemporary politics. In 2009, for the first time in history, there were more unmarried women in the United States than married ones.

And today, young women in the U.S. aren’t just unprecedentedly single; they also appear to be unprecedentedly uninterested in heterosexuality: According to private polling shared with Intelligencer by Democratic data scientist David Shor, roughly 30 percent of American women under 25 identify as LGBT; for women over 60, that figure is less than 5 percent. It’s possible that this is more of a life-cycle effect than a generational change.

The future is a different country. There, the Trump presidency is ancient history and the confident predictions of today’s pundits brim with dramatic irony. But surveys of Zoomers bring us tidings from Tomorrowland. And they appear to describe a place where politics is (at least) as fraught with gender conflict as our own.

A woman’s material dependence on their man has lessened. Women prefer having the alternative of a big-daddy state. But we seem to be moving beyond that now.

hat-tip Stephen Neil

No Families, No Children, No Future

No Families, No Children, No Future, by Rod Dreher. (See the previous post on the growing gender gap in western politics.)

Sex researchers have long put the rate of female homosexuality at around 1%, less than the male rate of 3%. But recently there has been an eruption of gay and transgender trendiness.

Has anything like this ever happened to any society, ever? Three out of ten women under the age of 25 consider themselves to be gay or transgender. Five percent, sure. Maybe even eight percent. But thirty? Will they always think that? Maybe not, but these are their prime childbearing years. The US fertility rate is at a 35-year low, and there’s no reason to think it will rise. Some critics blame structural difficulties in the US economy that make it harder for women to choose to have children, but European nations make it vastly easier for mothers, and still cannot get their fertility rates above replacement.

What’s behind this is primarily cultural. We have become an anti-natalist society. And further, we have become a society that no longer values the natural family. We see everywhere disintegration. …

And now we have 30 percent of Gen Z women claiming to be sexually uninterested in men. There is nothing remotely normal about that number. It is a sign of a deeply decadent culture — that is, a culture that lacks the wherewithal to survive. The most important thing that a generation can do is produce the next generation. No families, no children, no future. …

Earlier this year, David Brooks wrote a big piece for The Atlantic in which he observed that we are living through the most rapid change in the structure of the family in human history. In the piece, Brooks writes:

Eli Finkel, a psychologist and marriage scholar at Northwestern University, has argued that since the 1960s, the dominant family culture has been the “self-expressive marriage.” “Americans,” he has written, “now look to marriage increasingly for self-discovery, self-esteem and personal growth.” Marriage, according to the sociologists Kathryn Edin and Maria Kefalas, “is no longer primarily about childbearing and childrearing. Now marriage is primarily about adult fulfillment.

Sex is also primarily about individual fulfillment — and maybe solely about individual fulfillment. Young people today see no connection between sex, family, and a greater purpose.

In his book, the sociologist Zimmerman, in listing the signs of a dying civilization, mentions a decline in family formation and a rise in homosexuality. Again, he was not a religious man, but his social science convictions led him to conclude that from studying the historical records of ancient Greece and Rome. …

A number of readers have pointed out that the “B” in “LGBT” — bisexual — is probably doing a hell of a lot of work in that 30 percent number. …

A Gen Z female reader of Dreher’s writes:

I have seen an increasing number of women swear off dating, swear off marriage, swear off kids, and especially, swear off men, in the last several years. (I’ve also seen the other side, where many women are decrying the lack of decent men to date, or decent men to marry, but that’s a whole other discussion) The Anti-Men crowd, in my honest opinion, is a new wave of Neo-Feminism that not only wants to ‘crush the patriarchy’ but also wants to be able to move in a circle where men are not just optional, they’re completely unnecessary. These New Feminists are also increasingly gender-fluid, and welcome (with open arms) male-to-female Trans Rights Activists into their ranks.

Being Female doesn’t mean the same thing to them as it does to you or I. It means living a life of glitter and thunder, where all the worst female stereotypes marry an anti-child, anti-family worldview and deliver to the world a crowd of superficial, sexless persons who carry the banner of “Woman” without knowing what it might mean.

They’re Pro-Abortion, Pro-Sex (but the kind that ‘counts’) and Pro-Trans Rights (because “Woman” is a tag-line, not a biological reality).

In this reality any Man who isn’t an ‘Ally’ is the enemy, and men in general are very optional, can be easily replaced, and should support them and their increasingly hard-to-pin-down perspectives/interests in every way possible. A man looking for a wife (or children) isn’t going to find any prospects in the Neo-Feminist crowd, because these women don’t care about those things, they care about progressing an agenda that they’ve created.

Those are the extremists. They control the narrative. For conservative girls (even Catholic ones) trying to make it in a world being controlled by these groups is a dangerous prospect. You either have to be rigidly anti-culture and know when to keep your mouth shut (I adhere to this sentiment) or you have to have some cards to play that will let you weave through the lines.

The “Bisexuality” card is one of those cards, in my opinion. The second you prescribe to any LGBTQ identity you become “safe” in the Neo-Feminist lens. Even if you are religious or conservative and won’t ever act on same-sex attraction, ‘being Bi’ is enough to allow you to participate in the show without getting dragged for being an ‘old-fashioned female’ or ‘being controlled by the patriarchy’ (I sometimes wonder, as an aside, what some of these people think patriarchy means). It’s a convenient truth, and as others around me have mentioned, almost any woman with an imagination can be a ‘little bit Bi’ without too much effort.

Sigh. Leftism will be the death of western civ. Obviously the cultural trend to non-reproducing women is not sustainable. Islam or something else will take over. The future belongs to the fertile.

hat-tip Stephen Neil

Fourth Generation War Comes to a Theater Near You

Fourth Generation War Comes to a Theater Near You, by William Lind.

What is going on, right here on American soil, is war; a new kind of war that is also very old, waged by entities other than states. I call it Fourth Generation War and, to paraphrase Leon Trotsky, you may not be interested in Fourth Generation War—but it is interested in you. …

The Four Generations framework begins in 1648 [at the end of the Thirty Years War], when in the Peace of Westphalia the state claimed and subsequently enforced a monopoly on war. This seems automatic to us today; war means armies, navies, and air forces of a state or an alliance of states fighting similar armed forces belonging to other states.

But war’s definition was not always so narrow. Before Westphalia, many different kinds of entities fought wars: families (think of the Montagues and Capulets from Romeo and Juliet), clans, tribes, races, religions, and even business enterprises. India was conquered not by Great Britain, but by the British East India Company, a business with an army and a fleet. They used many different tools to fight; for the most part, armies and navies as we know them did not exist. Fighters ranged from every male able to carry a weapon, through poisoners inserted in a rival’s kitchen, to highly specialized mercenaries who hired themselves out to anyone with cash. …

People fought for many different reasons, not just raison d’état (political reasons). They fought for eternal salvation, for slaves to sell, for booty, for land, for pay, and because young men with idle hands like to fight—and the local women liked fighters. …

The state, as it arose beginning around the year 1500, gradually put an end to this. The state came to impose and sustain order and the safety of persons and property. War not made by states threatened that order. So, the state rounded up the non-state fighters and hanged them from the nearest tree, to the loud huzzahs of the population.

The First Generation War ran from Westphalia to about the middle of the 19th century. … It was a time characterized by tactics of line and column, which led to (for the most part) orderly battlefields which led in turn to a military culture of order. That culture continues in almost all state armed forces today. That’s a problem, because starting in the mid-19th century the battlefield became steadily more disorderly. …

Second and Third Generation War were both attempts to deal with the growing disorder of the battlefield, and both came out of World War I. Second Generation War was developed by the French Army. It reduced war to a highly centralized process of putting firepower on targets, a process that both upheld and required a culture of order. Third Generation War came out of the German experience in World War I. Commonly known as “Blitzkrieg” in its World War II manifestation, it sought not to control but to use the disorder of the battlefield through a military culture of maneuver, speed, decentralization, and encouragement of initiative. When the Second and Third Generations met in 1940, the latter defeated the former in six weeks, even though the French had more and better tanks than the Germans. Ideas, not weapons, were decisive …

Enter Fourth Generation War. All over the world, state militaries find themselves fighting not other mirror-image state armed forces but the ghosts of premodern war. Once again, many different kinds of entities are fighting wars: clans, tribes, races, religions, businesses we call drug cartels, and so on. They use many different means, not just armies; invasion by immigration is perhaps the most dangerous. And almost always, the state armed forces, despite vast combat power superiority, lose.

At the crux of Fourth Generation War is a crisis of the legitimacy of the state. This crisis varies greatly in intensity from one state to another, but almost everywhere we see people in growing numbers transfer their primary loyalty away from the state to non-state entities: race, religion, ideology, or political causes such as animal rights, etc. Many of those people, who would never fight for their state, are willing, even eager, to fight for their new primary loyalty.

The consequence is that the state loses the monopoly on war it claimed at Westphalia. As van Creveld says, the key change in the Fourth Generation is not how war is fought (although that does change), but who fights and what they fight for.

That is much of what we have seen going on in our streets over the past few months. Fourth Generation War has come to a theater near you. A variety of Fourth Generation “causes” have intersected with what I call a “supply-side war.” We have millions of kids who have been cooped up for two or three months. They have no work or school. They want an excuse to go out and fight, because that is what bored young people like to do. Especially young men; young women will demonstrate but when fighting starts they usually disappear.

These youths need a cause to plead in answer to adults’ demand for “social distancing.” It doesn’t matter what the cause is; saving the pangolins could work as well as “Black Lives Matter.” Supply-side war provides the raw material in youthful fighters, while Fourth Generation War gives them something to fight for, a new primary loyalty to replace duty to country. And the state proves itself impotent against its own progeny. We have seen this same supply-side war dynamic in Libya, Syria, Iraq, Somalia, Afghanistan, and most of West Africa. Now we are seeing it in Chicago and Portland. …

Security forces may put down individual disorders (and they should), but the only way to defeat Fourth Generation War is to restore the legitimacy of the state, to the point where it again becomes the primary loyalty of most of its citizens. What is the prospect for that in the United States of America in the year 2020? As President Trump would say, “Not good.”

We face a bifurcated culture. The elite that controls the state has for decades waged war on the common culture in the name of the ideology of cultural Marxism, also known as “wokeness.” While many Americans who cling to our historic Western, Christian culture also remain loyal to the state, their position is unsustainable because the Deep State is dominated by cultural Marxists.

Conservatives’ loyalty to America is to an America that has largely disappeared among elites. At some point, they too will transfer their primary loyalty to something other than the America we know now. Probably they will transfer it to many things, not just one, adding to the disintegrative forces working on the state.

Restoring the legitimacy of the state requires a federal government that actually cares about America “beyond the beltway,” and neither political party offers that. Washington has become a classic royal court toward the end of a dynasty. Court politics is everything; the rest of the country is only a stupid cow to be milked and beaten.

Some years ago, when I lived in D.C., I enjoyed a lunch with the third secretary of the Russian Embassy. We agreed that the United States had become a one-party state, which is something Russians know something about. The one party is the Establishment Party, and no matter which of its wings win, the Democrats or the Republicans, nothing important changes. The same people get the same old jobs, the money keeps flowing into bottomless sinkholes (welfare spending for Democrats, military spending for Republicans), everyone in town prospers and the rest of the country becomes poorer.

The 2016 presidential election broke from this script. Donald Trump, who was not a member of the one party and who dared defy cultural Marxism (any member of the Establishment who does that instantly becomes an “un-person”), grabbed the brass ring. That is the one party’s ultimate nightmare, that someone breaks their lock on policy, power, and money. The Establishment’s bitter, rabid hatred for President Trump springs from that fact and that fact alone. What he says or does is immaterial. Were he St. Francis of Assisi returned to mortal life, their vitriol toward him would be no less.

Regrettably, even if Trump wins re-election, he will be able to do little to restore the state’s legitimacy — a legitimacy he represents to many who voted for him, who in turn are further alienated from the state by the Establishment’s hatred of their champion. The one party owns the Deep State, which has served them well by sabotaging almost everything the president has tried to do. …

Where are we going?

So, is the future of the American state hopeless? Probably. I can see three possible outcomes to the crisis of legitimacy of the American state.

The first is that the dynasty falls and a competent new establishment class replaces it, one that can make the federal government work for everyone and that ceases to wage ideological war on its own people. In theory, this is possible, but I see no signs of it happening, nor any forces on the horizon that are capable of doing it. …

The Democrats are hopelessly in thrall to cultural Marxism because their base either believes in it, profits from it, or both. President Trump has shown himself incapable of remaking the Republican Party in his anti-Establishment, politically incorrect image. Could his successor do it, perhaps someone such as Tucker Carlson? Hope springs eternal, but hope is also a fool.

A second possibility is that both left and right could see the horrors that widespread Fourth Generation War on American soil would bring, step back, and work together to avoid it. There is a way to do that, by returning to American federalism as it was practiced before 1860. … We could maintain the union while accommodating cultural differences. Some states would be right, others left. If you found yourself being governed by people you despised, you would not need to fight. You could simply move. We would still be one country for foreign policy, defense, macroeconomics, and infrastructure. But leftists would be free to misrule the West Coast to their hearts’ content, while conservatives enjoyed the neighborliness and good food of the Old South.

The third and most likely possibility is that the country breaks apart in widespread Fourth Generation War. Welcome to Libya, Syria, and a growing portion of the world. If the third possibility becomes reality and America as we know it disappears from the world’s landscape, its vanishing will be part of something larger: the end of the modern age that gave birth to the state.

As the late Jeffrey Hart wrote, the modern age began when Western men discarded metaphysics and said, in effect, “We are no longer interested in questions of ultimate meaning; from now on, we care only about the physical world.” From that time onward, a focus on the practical defined modernity. Out of it came ships that could cross oceans and navigation to guide them; steam power, then electricity, medicine that allowed Western men to live anywhere in the world; and, by the beginning of the 20th century, world domination by the Christian West.

We threw away that domination in three great Western civil wars: World War I, World War II, and the Cold War. Now, the West is just one contending culture among many, the state to which the West gave birth is failing everywhere, and the questions of ultimate meaning that modernity discarded are returning to haunt its senescence.

A great synthesis that adds perspective. Read it all.

Trump barnstorms America

Trump barnstorms America, by Cameron Stewart.

“You wanna talk about polls?’ says Mark Stefura as Air Force One drops from the clouds and lands next to us in Lititz, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania.

“This is my poll here. Look at this huge crowd, willing to stand in the rain for hours just to see their president,” says Stefura, an airconditioning salesman, as he stands with me amid a sea of screaming Trump supporters.

“This is what enthusiasm looks like and this is why Donald Trump will win this election hands down. The rest of America is going to be crying big time, just like in 2016.”

With just a week to go until the US election, the 45th President is on an extraordinary rampage across America, a jaw-dropping schedule of rallies as he seeks a historic come-from-behind victory against Joe Biden.

The President is everywhere you look, dominating the news cycle, creating havoc and controversy for his opponents and rock-star adulation from his loyal army. By contrast, Biden is barely visible, adopting the lowest profile campaign of any candidate in modern US history.

On Tuesday (AEDT) Trump held an astonishing three separate rallies, each more than an hour long, around the key swing state of Pennsylvania before returning to the White House for the swearing in of the new conservative Supreme Court judge Amy Coney Barrett. Just weeks ago the 74-year-old was in hospital recovering from COVID-19. …

Stefura leans over and tells me: “Joe Biden had a rally up in Dallas, Pennsylvania, on Saturday and he had Bon Jovi there and Bon Jovi sang to 12 people and a bunch of Halloween pumpkins”. …

Trump has perfected his rallies in this campaign to make them a stunningly powerful weapon for his fans. The playbook is the same as in 2016. Lots of loud 1980s ­anthems from Elton John to Queen to rev the crowd up before his grand arrival on Air Force One.

On stage he speaks for more than an hour, mixing his stump speech on the teleprompter with anecdotes and wild off-topic riffs which bring the loudest cheers. He tells them that Biden is beholden to the Bernie Sanders socialist wing of the Democrats and that his running mate Kamala Harris is “more liberal than crazy Bernie”. …

And then there is Biden’s son Hunter’s laptop, the mention of which sparks cries of “lock him up”. Trump points at the press pack, saying the refusal of much of mainstream media to cover the story amounts to censorship. “We really don’t have freedom of press in this country,” he says as the crowd boos at the bank of TV cameras. …

Paula Keperling, who owns a cabinetry business, says she hated Trump when he first said he would run years ago.

“Never in my life did I think I would vote for him when he said he would first run years ago, but then when we started to learn more about him and what he stands for and I am like, ‘oh my gosh’,” she says. “He is extremely honest and he is so transparent and I pray to God that he wins. God has the final say at the end of the day and I believe God likes ­Donald Trump.”

If not for the polls, everyone would have written off Biden ages ago. I’m curious to see how accurate the polls turn out to be.

Tony Bobulinski Buries Joe Biden

Tony Bobulinski Buries Joe Biden. Let’s start with Tucker Carlson’s interview of Tony Bobulinski last night. Watch at least the first three minutes, then we’ll pick out the best bits below:

Tyler Durden:

Former Biden insider Tony Bobulinski – a registered Democrat who’s donated to Democrats – just gave a smoking gun interview to Fox News’ Tucker Carlson on Tuesday, where he described his dealings with the Biden family in their bid to do business with China. …

In May, 2017, Bobulinski agreed to spearhead a deal between the Bidens and a CCP-linked Chinese company – meeting with Hunter Biden and Rosemont Seneca partner Rob Walker “multiple times,” and meeting with former Vice President Joe Biden twice. …

When Hunter Biden’s laptop became national news, Rep. Adam Schiff suggested it was Russian disinformation, implying that he was a Russian asset. Bobulinsky made it explicitly clear that he would go public if Schiff didn’t retract his Russia smear — to which Biden family adviser Rob Walker said “You’re just gonna bury all of us.”

Excerpt: Joe Biden is “compromised” and constrained in dealing with China

Excerpt: A Blatant Lie: it’s “crystal clear” Joe Biden lied when denying knowledge of Hunter’s business dealings

Excerpt: The Biden response has been “disgusting” and I had to go on the record

Excerpt: 1000% the “big guy” is Joe Biden: Hunter’s former business partner

Excerpt: Q: How are you guys going to get away with this? A: Plausible deniability.


If he’s elected, Joe Biden will be removed forthwith. He is corrupt, caught with his hand in the cookie jar, and a proven liar in the most serious sense. After the election, the extreme left don’t need him for cover any more.

Harris and Hillary must be watching with glee.

hat-tip Stephen Neil, via Australian Political Skeptic

Sorry, there will be no return to normalcy under Joe Biden

Sorry, there will be no return to normalcy under Joe Biden, by Glenn Reynolds.

As the presidential campaign enters its final phase, one of the messages of the Biden campaign is that putting him, a 47-year veteran of national politics, into the White House will return us to something approaching normal. With Biden in charge, all the Trump craziness will expire, and things will be safe, sane and familiar.

In fact, there’s no chance of this happening. …

Trump was big on the national stage long before he was president. Why would he go away after the election is over? He’ll still have tens of millions of (probably angry) followers, deep pockets and a huge megaphone.

There has already been some talk of Trump starting his own television network to rival Fox News, and/or his own social media platform — the latter made more plausible by the heavy censorious hands of those running Twitter and Facebook — and I suspect that Trump would regard a 2020 loss as a setback, not a defeat. …

Not normal:

The deep toxicity of national politics, which grew worse after the 2016 election but which has been brewing at least since the turn of the millennium, is not going to go away. In fact, a lot of what we’re hearing from Biden supporters suggests that it will get worse under a Biden administration.

Democrats are already calling for a Biden administration to pack the Supreme Court by adding new justices until Democrats have a majority, to pack the Senate by admitting Puerto Rico and Washington, D.C., as states, and even to establish a “truth and reconciliation commission” in which Republicans will be dragged in front of the public and forced to confess the error of their ways. And, of course, abolishing the Electoral College. None of that is normal.

With the decline of advertising, the new media model IS political bias — and lots of it

With the decline of advertising, the new media model IS political bias — and lots of it, by Gerard Baker.

In the long and dishonorable annals of journalistic cant, there have been few statements to compete with the one issued by National Public Radio last week explaining why it wouldn’t burden its listeners with any news about Hunter Biden.

“We don’t want to waste our time on stories that are not really stories, and we don’t want to waste our listeners’ and readers’ time on stories that are just pure distractions,” said Terence Samuels, the network’s managing editor for news.

NPR’s might have been the most baldfaced exercise in dishonesty but it wasn’t the only one. The gatekeepers of truth in our national news organizations have come up with an anthology of justifications for ignoring the New York Post’s story about Mr. Biden’s financial aspirations — and his use of his father’s name to advance them. …

Most people have discovered they can live without NPR. Facebook and Twitter are different. They control the bulk of, respectively, the distribution of news to ordinary folks and the flow of news to journalists. When they decided to restrict access to the story, its visibility is dramatically diminished. …

The new media, going forward:

It raises profound questions for the future. If Mr. Biden and his Democrats take control after next week’s election, will the communications apparatus that controls well over half of the public media channels in this country become a vehicle for state propaganda?

Some of the old guard in these companies, especially in the traditional newsrooms, dismiss the idea. They defend their status as Mr. Biden’s praetorian guard on the grounds that Donald Trump is a unique threat to democracy and that they have been forced to take commensurately unusual measures. … Once the media and tech companies have saved the country from Mr. Trump’s Fourth Reich, the argument goes, the Resistance will surrender its arms and go back to being fair-minded standard-bearers for truth.

Put aside for a moment the idea that what was normal before President Trump was media objectivity. If you believe that, I have a few thousand Barack Obama hagiographies to sell you.

But even a return to the actual status quo ante 2015 is fanciful.

For one thing, the old guard in these organizations who did at least operate to some recognizable standards are being eclipsed. Newsrooms are now hostage to narrow-minded post-teenage social justice warriors who have no time for the idea that there might be an alternative to their own Maoist ideology. Forget “objectivity.” Journalists have a moral purpose.

If they do hold Democrats accountable, you can bet it will be not to the standards of, let’s say, the median voter. It will be to the demands of critical race theory, woke norms and climate extremism.

It used to be that news organizations were dependent on advertising for their revenue. But since that went to digital giants, newspapers especially have become increasingly dependent on subscribers willing to pay a few hundred dollars a year. They have become essentially membership clubs of like-minded people. Those members won’t take kindly to being told the Democrats they support are flawed or corrupt or dumb.

So don’t think a defeat for President Trump will return the media to some kind of golden age of news reporting — if one ever existed. Having tasted victory, why would they stop there?

They won’t stop until they are stopped.

Advertising used to pay for the media, so we got moderately unbiased news. But now that payment comes instead from political types, including subscribers, so the media has turned the bias way up — to please their new funders.

Coronavirus could age the brain by 10 years or cause IQ to fall

Coronavirus could age the brain by 10 years or cause IQ to fall, by Katie Gibson.

Coronavirus survivors may be at risk of lasting cognitive damage, according to a study that found that in the worst cases the infection can cause mental decline equivalent to an 8.5-point fall in IQ or the brain ageing 10 years.

The “brain fog” reported by many people weeks and months after their recovering from the virus may be a symptom of more serious cognitive deficits, scientists have said.

Research involving 84,285 people who had recovered from confirmed or suspected COVID-19 found that damage to the brain had happened to varying extents, depending upon the severity of the infection. However, more work is needed to identify how long this lasts. …

Those who had had no breathing difficulties but had tested positive also exhibited cognitive decline. People who had recovered at home had an average deficit equivalent to ageing five years or dropping four IQ points.

“This is a large enough difference that as an individual you would notice an impact on the ability to cope with your normal job and everyday life,” Dr Hampshire said.

This fits in with the impairment bioweapon theory. A few deaths among the old and sick are just a side effect.

Meanwhile, here is another example of the shocking economic carnage that results from applying a lockdown too late. London left it even later than Melbourne.

via Philip Barton