• Pragerisms

    For a more comprehensive list of Pragerisms visit
    Dennis Prager Wisdom.

    • "The left is far more interested in gaining power than in creating wealth."
    • "Without wisdom, goodness is worthless."
    • "I prefer clarity to agreement."
    • "First tell the truth, then state your opinion."
    • "Being on the Left means never having to say you're sorry."
    • "If you don't fight evil, you fight gobal warming."
    • "There are things that are so dumb, you have to learn them."
  • Liberalism’s Seven Deadly Sins

    • Sexism
    • Intolerance
    • Xenophobia
    • Racism
    • Islamophobia
    • Bigotry
    • Homophobia

    A liberal need only accuse you of one of the above in order to end all discussion and excuse himself from further elucidation of his position.

  • Glenn’s Reading List for Die-Hard Pragerites

    • Bolton, John - Surrender is not an Option
    • Bruce, Tammy - The Thought Police; The New American Revolution; The Death of Right and Wrong
    • Charen, Mona - DoGooders:How Liberals Hurt Those They Claim to Help
    • Coulter, Ann - If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans; Slander
    • Dalrymple, Theodore - In Praise of Prejudice; Our Culture, What's Left of It
    • Doyle, William - Inside the Oval Office
    • Elder, Larry - Stupid Black Men: How to Play the Race Card--and Lose
    • Frankl, Victor - Man's Search for Meaning
    • Flynn, Daniel - Intellectual Morons
    • Fund, John - Stealing Elections
    • Friedman, George - America's Secret War
    • Goldberg, Bernard - Bias; Arrogance
    • Goldberg, Jonah - Liberal Fascism
    • Herson, James - Tales from the Left Coast
    • Horowitz, David - Left Illusions; The Professors
    • Klein, Edward - The Truth about Hillary
    • Mnookin, Seth - Hard News: Twenty-one Brutal Months at The New York Times and How They Changed the American Media
    • Morris, Dick - Because He Could; Rewriting History
    • O'Beirne, Kate - Women Who Make the World Worse
    • Olson, Barbara - The Final Days: The Last, Desperate Abuses of Power by the Clinton White House
    • O'Neill, John - Unfit For Command
    • Piereson, James - Camelot and the Cultural Revolution: How the Assassination of John F. Kennedy Shattered American Liberalism
    • Prager, Dennis - Think A Second Time
    • Sharansky, Natan - The Case for Democracy
    • Stein, Ben - Can America Survive? The Rage of the Left, the Truth, and What to Do About It
    • Steyn, Mark - America Alone
    • Stephanopolous, George - All Too Human
    • Thomas, Clarence - My Grandfather's Son
    • Timmerman, Kenneth - Shadow Warriors
    • Williams, Juan - Enough: The Phony Leaders, Dead-End Movements, and Culture of Failure That Are Undermining Black America--and What We Can Do About It
    • Wright, Lawrence - The Looming Tower

The BBC Does Have A Lefty Brain, DOESN’T IT!



Is the notoriously left-wing BBC finally getting religion? The Telegraph reports:

The BBC chairman yesterday indicated “the BBC does have a liberal bias” but added “the institution is fighting against it.”

Richard Sharp, in an interview in the Sunday Times, said he and Tim Davie, the director-general, had drawn up a ten-point plan on impartiality, anti-bias training along with reviews of news output in a drive to tackle the issue.

The BBC says it especially needs to upgrade its reporting on business and finance, having been taken by surprise by Brexit and now being confronted with inflation. I suppose being a socialist doesn’t give you a very useful point of view when it comes to business and the economy.

What, after all these years, is driving the BBC’s pledge to reform itself? Money. There is a move afoot to abolish the time-honored “license fee” that generates three-quarters of the BBC’s revenue.

That prospect naturally concentrates the minds of those who run the Beeb, but the fundamental issue is that no democracy should have a state-run news media. BBC News is an anachronism whose time might finally be drawing to an end.

Biden Grease In Action



A very interesting story broke on the weekend. Twitter’s new owner Elon Musk decided to release documents that reveal how the Democrat party was able to contact Twitter in order to have critics of the regime banned. The Democrat party could also contact Twitter to have stories critical of the regime censored. It turns out that our secular left fascists are the same as any others in history.

Here’s the story from Daily Wire:

Twitter CEO Elon Musk released information through journalist Matt Taibbi Friday afternoon showing that Twitter was working in conjunction with then-Democrat presidential candidate Joe Biden’s team, removing tweets that team Biden wanted deleted.

Musk said that he decided to release the information because it was “necessary to restore public trust” in the platform after it censored the New York Post’s bombshell report about Hunter Biden’s laptop just weeks before the 2020 presidential election.

Musk quote retweeted Taibbi’s multi-tweet thread on Twitter, writing: “Here we go!!”

Taibbi began by explaining that the company was “slowly forced to add … tools for controlling speech [that] were designed to combat the likes of spam and financial fraudsters.”

“Slowly, over time, Twitter staff and executives began to find more and more uses for these tools. Outsiders began petitioning the company to manipulate speech as well: first a little, then more often, then constantly,” Taibbi said. “By 2020, requests from connected actors to delete tweets were routine. One executive would write to another: ‘More to review from the Biden team.’ The reply would come back: ‘Handled.’”

Remember the New York Post’s story about Hunter Biden’s laptop?

“Twitter took extraordinary steps to suppress the story, removing links and posting warnings that it may be ‘unsafe,’” Taibbi continued. “They even blocked its transmission via direct message, a tool hitherto reserved for extreme cases, e.g. child pornography.”

The Federalist recalls how Facebook also censored stories that were critical of the Biden regime, at the request of the Biden regime:

Just this week, FBI Supervisory Special Agent Elvis Chan confirmed the government’s information suppression campaign to Attorneys General Eric Schmitt of Missouri and Jeff Landry of Louisiana. In his testimony, Chan disclosed that agents from the FBI’s Foreign Influence Task Force and Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency met weekly with Big Tech companies to encourage censorship ahead of the 2020 election.

The FBI’s instructions inspired Facebook to reduce distribution on posts reporting about the laptop, Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg admitted earlier this year.

“If the FBI… if they come to us and tell us we need to be on guard about something, then I want to take that seriously,” Zuckerberg said on an episode of “The Joe Rogan Experience.”

When the corporate media and dozens of former intelligence heads quickly brushed off Biden family corruption under the guise of “Russian disinformation,” Facebook saw its opportunity to throttle the story that would give its preferred president a bad rap.

It’s very interesting. I’ve read something about secular left regimes in history. The Nazis in Germany. The communists in Russia and China. And so on. The methods of the Democrat party and their allies in Big Tech are analogous to the methods of these other secular left regimes. It’s surprising to me that so many voters would support fascist political parties. But I guess if they don’t learn much about history in the unionized government-run public schools, then we shouldn’t be surprised.

Lefty GOPers Stirring Hate For GOPer President Trump!?



For quite a while it has seemed like we are stuck in a time loop determined to repeat the 1960s, with rising crime, urban riots, racial politics that summons the complete capitulation of the liberal establishment, vast expansion of the welfare state, etc.

Also rats in New York City. Bloomberg reports:

Wanted: NYC Rat Czar. Will Offer Salary as High as $170,000

New York Mayor Eric Adams is looking for a leader in the city’s war on rats, and wants someone who is “somewhat bloodthirsty” and committed to the “wholesale slaughter” of vermin. Formally known as the director of rodent mitigation, the new job will pay $120,000 to $170,000 a year and report to the deputy mayor for operations.

In his first year as mayor, Adams has been escalating his rhetoric against rats. . . “There’s NOTHING I hate more than rats,” Adams said in a statement posted on Twitter on Thursday. “If you have the drive, determination, and killer instinct needed to fight New York City’s relentless rat population — then your dream job awaits.”

It is possible this marks the beginning of the end of the road of our current madness. Because it was a controversy over federal rat eradication in 1967 that was a turning point of sorts against 1960s liberalism. President Johnson, still swept along by the flood tide of his Great Society nonsense, proposed a $40 million (real money back then) federal rat eradication program for major cities. It was a typical expression of the view that all social problems required a centralized federal solution—a view still very much with us.

But for once even Democrats thought this went too far. Fifty-nine House Democrats joined with 148 Republicans to vote down the rat bill. It was the rhetoric, and not the comparatively modest sum involved, that made this a notable episode. Congressmen joked about LBJ’s “civil rats” bill, with a “rat corps” to be presided over by “a high commissioner of rats,” which Mayor Adams now un-ironically wants to emulate.  “Mr. Speaker,” the typical speech went, “I think the ‘rat smart thing’ for us to do is to vote down this rat bill ‘rat now.’” Florida Democrat James Haley suggested releasing “federally funded cats” in the cities instead.

This anticipates Donald Trump’s method of eradicating rats from the husk of the rat-infested and bankrupt Commodore Hotel he acquired back in the early 1980s. After pest control experts said they couldn’t do the job, Trump simply turned loose a large bunch of feral cats, who made quick work of the rat problem. No wonder the rats in the administrative state fear him so much.

“What is so strange about releasing criminals, shoplifters, muggers, sex deviants — all often repeat offenders?”

Spectator logo


Shocker: Americans Think Democrats Are ‘Strange’

What is so strange about being on the side of criminals, shoplifters, muggers, sex deviants — all often repeat offenders?


November 29, 2022, 10:53 PM

President Joe Biden speaks at an event to mark the confirmation of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to the Supreme Court, April 8, 2022 (White House Photography/Shutterstock)

WASHINGTON — The Economist magazine recently began its survey of the Nov. 8 elections in America with a telling observation about the Democratic Party’s performance. According to the Economist, the “Democrats tend to overlook how strange voters think they are.” Strange? Is that true? The Party of Whoopi Goldberg, strange? The Party of Harvey Weinstein and Hillary Clinton, strange? The Party of Joe Biden, well, at least unorthodox?

Exactly what is so strange about a person — young or old — arriving at the conclusion that he or she, or it, wants to change his, or her, or its, sex and expects the government, at least if Medicare or Medicaid is involved, to pick up the tab for the surgery? Moreover, if he, she, or it, is underage, the Biden administration believes the individual should be allowed to receive “gender affirming” surgical procedures such as mastectomies — from which there is no return — with only limited parental control.

Or what is so strange about leaving our borders open to marauding gangs, lone criminals, people who want to see what it is like on the American side, or people who want to saunter across the border for the fun of it? After all, that is what they are doing.

What is so strange about proclaiming America — the country that most of the world wants to emulate and admires — a failed state?

What is so strange about tearing down America’s statues of great figures from the past and of epic achievements, even if they were raised for Founding Fathers such as George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, and the savior of the Union, Abraham Lincoln? Whom would they put in Washington’s, Jefferson’s, and Lincoln’s place?

What is so strange about releasing criminals, shoplifters, muggers, sex deviants — all often repeat offenders?

What is so strange about declaring whole cities, many of them America’s greatest cities, “sanctuary cities”? Many Democrats would fire their police forces and replace the police with mental health counselors.

My only question about all these Democratic reformers is why did the Democrats not start their reform programs earlier? Say, before America had to fight two world wars, which, incidentally, met with general approval worldwide, save for a few thousand disgruntled Nazis, fascists, and the criminally insane?

The Economist went on to cite a poll commissioned by Third Way, a centrist Democratic think tank, that found that the average American voter when asked which party is more extreme answered the Democrats by a significant margin. Yet when Americans enter the polling booth they generally split down the middle, with about half voting for the Republicans and about half voting for the Democrats. How do we explain this finding? Do a significant number of Democrats cast their votes for candidates that they find “strange” and “extreme”?

My conclusion is that when the average American answers a pollster’s questions, he is relaxed. He might be answering the question from his kitchen table over a cup of coffee. He might be wearing his pajamas. When he goes out to vote, however, he is not so relaxed.  When he enters the voting station, his blood pressure is probably up. The voter has to worry about choosing the right candidate. Has he or she marked the right box? What did the morning media commentator say about Candidate X? Whether the voter is aware of it or not, he has been influenced by the media, and the media is overwhelmingly biased … biased for the Democrats. By the time a voter has cast a ballot, another influence has to be factored into the voting equation. That is the media, and ever since then–Vice President Spiro Agnew gave his historic 1969 speech about the left-wing dominance of the media, its influence in elections has only increased.

This explains the disparity between how the average American perceives Democrats in politics and the way the average American votes. Of course, many average Americanos find Democratic issues “strange” and “extreme,” but those that vote Democratic vote Democratic anyway. The gender jugglers, border crossers, monument topplers, opponents of the police, and advocates of sanctuary cities mentioned above never hurt anyone. Or have they?

Glory to Ukraine!

“Joe Biden’s cognitive state was another suppression story”.


How Corrupt is a Corrupt Media?

The media has ceased to exist, and the public plods on by assuming as true whatever the media suppresses and as false whatever the media covers.

By Victor Davis Hanson at American Greatness:

December 4, 2022

The current “media”—loosely defined as the old major newspapers like the New York Times and Washington Post, the network news channels, MSNBC and CNN, PBS and NPR, the online news aggregators like Google, Apple, and Yahoo, and the social media giants like the old Twitter and Facebook—are corrupt. 

They have adopted in their news coverage a utilitarian view that noble progressive ends justify almost any unethical means to obtain them. The media is unapologetically fused with the Democratic Party, the bicoastal liberal elite, and the progressive agenda. 

The result is that the public cannot trust that the news it hears or reads is either accurate or true. The news as presented by these outlets has been carefully filtered to suppress narratives deemed inconvenient or antithetical to the political objectives of these entities, while inflating themes deemed useful. 

This bias now accompanies increasing (and increasingly obvious) journalistic incompetence. Lax standards reflect weaponized journalism schools and woke ideology that short prior basic requisites of writing and ethical protocols of quoting and sourcing. In sum, a corrupt media that is ignorant, arrogant, and ideological explains why few now trust what it delivers.


Once a story is deemed antithetical to left-wing agendas, there arises a collective effort to smother it. Suppression is achieved both by neglect, and by demonizing others who report an inconvenient truth as racists, conspiracist “right-wingers,” and otherwise irredeemable. 

The Hunter Biden laptop story is the locus classicus. Social media branded the authentic laptop as Russian disinformation. That was a lie. But the deception did not stop them from censoring and squashing those who reported the truth. 

Instead of carefully examining the contents of the laptop or interrogating Biden-company players such as Tony Bobulinksi, the media hyped the ridiculous disinformation hoax as a mechanism for suppressing the damaging pre-election story altogether.

Joe Biden’s cognitive state was another suppression story. The media simply stifled the truth that 2020 candidate Biden was unable to conduct a normal campaign due to his frailty and non-compos-mentis status. Few fully reported his often cruel and racist outbursts of the “lying-dog-faced-pony-soldier” and “you ain’t black”/“terrorist” sort. 

The #MeToo media predictably quashed the Tara Reade disclosure. In fact, journalists turned on her in the manner that they previously had insisted was sexist and defamatory “blame-the-victim” smearing. 

Joe Biden has long suffered from a sick tic of creepily intruding into the private space of young women and preteen girls: blowing their hair, talking into their ears, squeezing their necks, hugging in full body embraces—all for far too long. In other words, Biden should have expected the Charlie Rose or the Donald Trump Access Hollywood media treatment. Instead, he was de facto exonerated by collective media silence. To this day, despite staffers’ efforts to corral his wandering hands and head, he occasionally reverts to form with his creepy fixations with younger women. 

Ask the media today which administration surveilled journalists and they will likely cry “Trump!” Yet their own sensationalist reporting that the IRS was weaponized by Trump was proven a lie when the inspector general notedTrump never went after either James Comey or Andrew McCabe. And it was an untruth comparable to the smear that “nuclear secrets” and “nuclear codes” were hidden away at Mar-a-Lago or that Donald Trump sought to profit from the trove. Nor does anyone remember that Barack Obama went after the Associated Press reporters and Fox News Channel’s James Rosen. Nor do they care that Biden sought to birth an Orwellian Ministry of Truth censorship bureau.


The media does not just suppress, but concocts. The entire Russian-collusion hoax—Robert Mueller’s vain 22-month and $40 million investigation—was a complete waste of time on the one hand, but on the other an effective effort to destroy the effectiveness of an elected president. 

about:blankReport Ad

How many print and television celebrity journalists declared that Trump would shortly resign, be jailed, or impeached over the pee-pee tape or Christopher Steele’s other mishmash of lies? The problem for the media in promoting the fallacious dossier was not just that it was untrue, but that it was so awfully written, so obviously poorly sourced, and so Drudge Report-like amateurishly sensational that it could not be appear factual to any sane person—other than an agenda-driven and addled journalist who found it useful.

Do we remember the Hillary Clinton-approved Alfa Bank/Trump Tower fable that is now resurfacing for a second try? 

Or the Jussie Smollett caper that trumped even the Brett Kavanaugh-as-teenage-assaulter and rapist lie? Or the Covington kids fabrications that trumped the Duke lacrosse hoax that trumped the “Hands Up, Don’t Shoot” myth that trumped the “white Hispanic,” doctored photo/edited 911 call smear about George Zimmerman? 

Recall Trump’s supposed “immigration jails” and “kids in cages” at the border—in truth both not cages and in fact birthed by Obama

Then there was Trump’s supposedly impeachable offense of purportedly canceling military aid to Ukraine so that he could allegedly hound the innocent Biden family—rather than delaying, but not canceling, offensive arms vetoed by the Obama Administration for the prescient worry that the Biden family had left a trail of corruption in Ukraine.  

Who ran with the “voter suppression” untruth that Stacey Abrams was the “real” governor of Georgia or the yarn that Donald Trump was illegitimately elected? How exactly did Jeffery Epstein and Harvey Weinstein operate as sexual perverts and high-profile, liberal-benefacting deviants for years without media scrutiny? Who created the cable news myth of now-felon Michael Avenatti as presidential timber? 

Chronological Manipulation

Why, after the midterms, did we suddenly learn that Donald Trump did not, as in the case of Barack Obama’s Lois Lerner skullduggery, manipulate the IRS for political purposes to go after James Comey and Andrew McCabe? Why suddenly post-election did we read that his presidential papers at Mar-a-Lago really did not contain “nuclear codes” and “nuclear secrets” or stuff intended for sale? Why did we learn after November 8 that a special counsel was suddenly appointed? Why did we discover the Ponzi scheme of Sam Bankman-Fried only after the midterms and why is he treated as an aw-shucks teen in bum drag rather than a calculating and conniving crook?

The answer is the same as why, just days before the 2016 election, we were assured suddenly by the media that the DNC’s planted stories about Christopher Steele’s dossier “proved” that Trump was a Russian stooge. 


When did the media finally dribble out that Obama’s memoir Dreams From My Father was chock full of lies and thus was intended all along to be read as “impressionistic” rather than factual? 

We only learned belatedly that Hillary Clinton did not brave the front lines in virtual combat in Bosnia. We were assured that she was completely out of the loop on the Uranium One deal and thus knew nothing about the cash that poured into the Clinton Foundation and Bill Clinton’s honoraria from Russian sources

Did the media ever fully report that Hillary Clinton: 1) broke the law by using a personal server to communicate while Secretary of State; 2) lied about the missing emails by claiming they were all personal about “yoga” and “weddings” and such; 3) destroyed subpoenaed evidence by smashing her devices; 4) had her husband accidently bump into Attorney General Loretta Lynch on a Phoenix tarmac who was supposedly investigating Clinton at the time; and 5) became our first major election denialist by declaring “Russian collusion” to be true, Donald Trump to be illegitimately elected, and the 2016 balloting to be “rigged”?

Unethical Behavior 

Our once lions of network news were long ago revealed to have feet of clay. Dan Rather insisted that “fake but true” memos “proved” George W. Bush got special exemptions from military service. Brian Williams fabricated an entire Walter-Mitty fantasy existence with ease. The Wiki Leaks Podesta trove revealed blue-chip reporters checking in with the Clinton campaign and the DNC to “fact check” and brainstorm their pre-publication puff pieces. 

about:blankReport Ad

Throughout the Obama years, Ben Rhodes, the failed novelist and deputy national security advisor distorted U.S. foreign policy, as CBS News, overseen by his brother, warped its coverage of him. 

Do we remember the commentary on MSNBC of the brilliant Vanderbilt professor and MSNBC “analyst,” presidential historian Jon Meacham? He periodically praised Joe Biden’s eloquence and moving addresses without informing his audience that he contributed to or indeed helped write what he gushed about. No problem. Even after finally being fired, Meacham is still at it, offering his input on Biden’s September 1, Phantom-of-the-Opera “un-American” rant.

CNN Sums It Up

The long, slow death of Jeffery Zucker’s CNN is emblematic of all the mortal sins listed above of our present-day corrupt media.

It is ancient history now and thus forgotten that the self-righteous MSNBC anchorman Lawrence O’Donnell falsely claimed that Deutsche Bank documents would prove that Russian oligarchs co-signed a loan application for Donald Trump. 

Over a decade ago, CNN’s Candy Crowley—remember this impartial “moderator” of the second 2012 presidential debate?—infamously transformed before our very television eyes into an active and shameless partisan by attacking candidate Mitt Romney. CNN commentator Donna Brazile topped Crowley when she unethically leaked primary-debate questions to candidate Hillary Clinton. When pressed, Brazile serially denied her role.

CNN’s former Obamaite Jim Sciutto is known as a serial offender of journalistic ethics and was recently the subject of an internal investigation. Sciutto has also alleged, falsely, that the CIA had yanked a high-level spy out of Moscow because of President Trump’s supposedly dangerously reckless handling of classified information. Sciutto joined CNN’s Carl Bernstein and Marshall Cohen to falsely report that Lanny Davis’ client Michael Cohen would soon assert that Trump had prior knowledge of an upcoming meeting between his son and Russian interests.

Another CNN trio of Thomas Frank, Eric Lichtblau, and Lex Harris were forced out from CNN for their mythologies that the Trump-hating Anthony Scaramucci was directly involved in a $10 billion Russian fund.

CNN’s Julian Zelizer fabricated his own tall tale that Donald Trump never reiterated America’s commitment to honor NATO’s critical Article 5 guarantee. The quartet of CNN’s Gloria Borger, Eric Lichtblau, Jake Tapper, and Brian Rokus all were exposed wrongly assuring that former FBI director James Comey would unequivocally contradict President Trump’s prior assertion that Comey had told him he was not under investigation. 

CNN reporter Manu Raju in December 2017 trafficked in lots of fake news stories that Donald Trump, Jr. supposedly had prior access to the hacked WikiLeaks documents. And he offered another fable that Trump, Jr. would be indicted by Mueller’s special-counsel investigation. But then, who at CNN did not blast out such “bombshells” and “walls are closing in” lies?

The once supposedly great Chris Cuomo—finally fired for softball incestuous interviews with his brother Andrew while serving as confidant to his sibling’s sexual-harassment dilemmas—had been caught on tape screaming obscenities. He also lied on the air when he assured a CNN audience in 2016 that it was illegal for citizens to examine the just-released WikiLeaks emails.

Julia Ioffe was eagerly hired by CNN after Politico fired her for tweeting that the president and his daughter Ivanka might have had an incestuous sexual relationship. CNN Anderson Cooper was every bit as creepy. He harangued a pro-Trump panelist with “If he [Trump] took a dump on his desk, you would defend it!”

Erstwhile CNN religious “expert” Reza Aslan was not so subtle. He trashed Trump as “this piece of sh**.” The late CNN cooking show guru Anthony Bourdain openly joked about poisoning Trump with hemlock. Recall CNN New Year’s Eve host Kathy Griffin posing with a bloody facsimile of Trump’s severed head. Was there something in the CNN contract that stipulated CNN journalists had to be obscene, vulgar, and threatening? 

about:blankReport Ad

The CNN circus also hired as a “security analyst” the admitted liar James Clapper. So, was it any surprise that on spec Clapper did what he was hired to do—by falsely claiming that President Trump was a veritable Russian asset?

But for that matter, former CIA director Michael Hayden preposterously alleged that Trump’s immigration policies resembled those in the death camps of Nazi Germany. Was it any wonder either that CNN host Sally Kohn and her roundtable panelists raised their hands to reverberate the “hands up, don’t shoot” lie of the Ferguson shooting?

Do the bias, invective, and lack of ethics of the media even matter anymore? 

In truth, media corruption has changed the course of recent history. 

Had the true nature of the contents of the Hunter Biden laptop been reported, the 2020 voters have polled that the revelation may well have made a difference because they would not have voted for a candidate so clearly compromised by foreign interests. 

Tell the full story of death, destruction, arson, looting, and injured police of the post-George Floyd rioting and what emerges is not the MSNBC denial of violence or the August 2020 CNN lie of a “fiery but mostly peaceful” sort of idealistic protestors.

The Kavanaugh and Smollett fake news accounts helped further to tear apart the country and greenlighted the new assaults on the Supreme Court, from Senator Chuck Schumer’s (D-N.Y.) rants and threats to the would-be assassin who turned up near the Kavanaugh residence. 

The Russian collusion hoax and the first impeachment media hysteria virtually ruined a presidency and have had grave foreign-policy consequences vis à vis Russia.

The media, moreover, matter-of-factly assumed Twitter was an arm of the Democratic Party. Mark Zuckerberg and the FBI worked together to suppress any news embarrassing to the Biden campaign. Do not expect much media coverage of Elon Musk’s serial disclosures of Twitter’s efforts to suppress free communications.

No thanks to the media, after nearly three years we are finally learning that the Wuhan Lab proved the likely source of the COVID pandemic and that the media-sainted Dr. Anthony Fauci subsidized gain-of-function viral research in Wuhan. 

Despite the lies, Americans assumed that Officer Brian Sicknick was not killed by Trump supporters as reported. The public shrugged “of course” when the media did its best to suppress the name of the Capitol policeman who lethally shot Ashli Babbitt for attempting to go through a broken window inside the Capitol. And on and on.

In sum, there is no media. It has ceased to exist, and the public plods on by assuming as true whatever the Pravda-like news outlets suppress and as false whatever they cover.

“It’s not just Brussels that is on the warpath”.

December 4, 2022

The Armageddon of Free Speech

By S.R. Piccoli at American Thinker:

Just a few days ago, as many will remember, Elon Musk trolled CNN by posting on Twitter a meme with a fake headline attributed to the the cable news network.  The image included a screenshot of anchor Don Lemon next to a stock photo of Musk.  The headline read, “CNN: Elon Musk could threaten free speech on Twitter by literally allowing people to speak freely.”  Needless to say, CNN’s public relations department quickly posted a screenshot of Musk’s tweet, which included a disclaimer saying that the tweet was in violation of Twitter’s rules.  In response, Musk brushed off CNN’s response, tweeting: “Lmaoooo.”  Those are the initials for “laughing my a– off.”

In addition to being funny, the episode was also in some ways incredibly meaningful and emblematic.  In other words, the “fake headline” was not so fake.  On the contrary, it was a brutal and effective synthesis of the way liberals, leftists, and progressives approach the issue of freedom of speech.  They put things less crudely; they are so often sophisticated intellectuals who speak elegantly and like to dance around things instead of getting straight to the point.  But the final result is always the same.  Their reproach for the supporters of freedom of speech — or what they call “free speech absolutists” —  is that “free speech is not simply about saying whatever you want, unchecked, but about negotiating complicated compromises.”  According to the critics of Elon Musk, the “rhetoric of free speech absolutists” fails to understand that “for some speech to be free, other speech has to be limited.”

It’s curious that most of the time, their arguments are self-referential and self-assertive statements and propositions: “Like Trump, Musk has become the tribune of fascists and racists by way of adolescent contrarianism, an insatiable need to flaunt his control and a radicalising inability to cope with being told he’s wrong on the internet.  For him, ‘free speech’ seems merely a vehicle for his delusional plan to make Twitter into a fawning ‘digital town square’ that he presides over.”

Do you remember the medieval ipse dixit argument?  “He (Aristotle) said it himself,” serving as a phrase capable of ending arguments.  Now it has become, “We (liberals, progressives, etc) say so.”  It’s true because we say it’s true, and if you don’t agree with us, you are a fascist/racist/homophobe, etc., and we don’t want your kind here.  It’s the contrary — o tempora, o mores! — of the answer Supreme Court justice Louis Brandeis gave in 1927 to the question, “When someone says something we disagree with, should we shut them up?”  “The remedy to be applied,” he said, “is more speech, not enforced silence.”

That’s also the rationale behind what White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre once said: “When you are not with what majority of Americans are, then you know, that is extreme.  That is an extreme way of thinking.”  It’s the triumph of self-referentiality.  The definition of what is meant by the term “extreme” is entirely arbitrary and light-years away from the principles of liberal democracy as we have known it.

The massive “immune response” to Elon Musk’s commitment to free speech from left-wing activists, mainstream media, and Big Tech prompted journalist Colin Wright to tweet that people should be frightened.  “This is a battle they cannot be allowed to win,” he wrote.  Musk responded, “This is a battle for the future of civilization.  If free speech is lost even in America, tyranny is all that lies ahead.”  That seems to be the best way to put things.  This is the Armageddon of free speech.  If we lose, it’s the end of Western civilization.

It’s not by chance that on the one hand, Elon Musk’s $44-billion takeover of Twitter is being investigated by federal authorities over national security concerns that his foreign partners may be able to access user data, and on the other, the E.U. commissioner responsible for implementing the upcoming Digital Services Act (DSA), Thierry Breton, recently said that Twitter has “huge work ahead” to get ready for the bloc’s strict new rules for online platforms.  He posted a short video clip of a meeting with CEO Elon Musk, saying that he welcomed Musk’s “intent to get Twitter 2.0 ready for the DSA.”  But Twitter “will have to implement transparent user policies, significantly reinforce content moderation and tackle disinformation.”  He also told the Financial Times that Twitter needs to make a number of changes to meet the DSA’s requirements.  It will need to “aggressively” tackle disinformation, submit to an audit, provide clear criteria about which users are at risk of being banned, and carefully consider how it lifts bans in the future.  It’s almost a declaration of war. 

It’s not just Brussels that is on the warpath.  French digital minister Jean-Noël Barrot didn’t appreciate Twitter’s change of policy on COVID-related information.  “COVID-19 and vaccination misinformation [are] now freely available on Twitter.  Another milestone is reached in irresponsibility,” he tweeted.  In turn, in an interview with U.S. broadcaster ABC, French president Emmanuel Macron called Twitter’s decision “a big issue.”  “I think we need to take the issue head-on, I’m in favor of the exact opposite, more regulation,” he added.  

In short, the die is cast. The Armageddon of free speech has just begun.

Samuel Robert Piccoli is a blogger and the author of the books Being Conservative from A to Z (2014) and Blessed Are the Free in Spirit (2021).  He lives in the Venice area.