Evidence has emerged apparently showing that Joe Biden and members of his family are traitors, selling influence not only to the dismally corrupt Ukraine, but to America's chief geopolitical rival, China.
The American corporate news media, with few exceptions, give every indication of complicity in this corruption by failing to provide appropriate coverage of the story, while US law enforcement agencies seem loathe to act with any seriousness in the matter. Ditto the self-proclaimed alt media such as the Unz Review and the Intercept.
Here is an article by Glenn Greenwald's that the Intercept refused to publish:
Article on Joe and Hunter Biden Censored By The Intercept
An attempt to assess the importance of the known evidence, and a critique of media lies to protect their favored candidate, could not be published at The Intercept
| 18 hr | 570 | 312 |
I am posting here the most recent draft of my article about Joe and Hunter Biden — the last one seen by Intercept editors before telling me that they refuse to publish it absent major structural changes involving the removal of all sections critical of Joe Biden, leaving only a narrow article critiquing media outlets. I will also, in a separate post, publish all communications I had with Intercept editors surrounding this article so you can see the censorship in action and, given the Intercept’s denials, decide for yourselves (this is the kind of transparency responsible journalists provide, and which the Intercept refuses to this day to provide regarding their conduct in the Reality Winner story). This draft obviously would have gone through one more round of proof-reading and editing by me — to shorten it, fix typos, etc — but it’s important for the integrity of the claims to publish the draft in unchanged form that Intercept editors last saw, and announced that they would not “edit” but completely gut as a condition to publication:
TITLE: THE REAL SCANDAL: U.S. MEDIA USES FALSEHOODS TO DEFEND JOE BIDEN FROM HUNTER’S EMAILS
Publication by the New York Post two weeks ago of emails from Hunter Biden's laptop, relating to Vice President Joe Biden's work in Ukraine, and subsequent articles from other outlets concerning the Biden family's pursuit of business opportunities in China, provoked extraordinary efforts by a de facto union of media outlets, Silicon Valley giants and the intelligence community to suppress these stories.
One outcome is that the Biden campaign concluded, rationally, that there is no need for the front-running presidential candidate to address even the most basic and relevant questions raised by these materials. Rather than condemn Biden for ignoring these questions -- the natural instinct of a healthy press when it comes to a presidential election -- journalists have instead led the way in concocting excuses to justify his silence.
After the Post’s first article, both that newspaper and other news outlets have published numerous other emails and texts purportedly written to and from Hunter reflecting his efforts to induce his father to take actions as Vice President beneficial to the Ukrainian energy company Burisma, on whose board of directors Hunter sat for a monthly payment of $50,000, as well as proposals for lucrative business deals in China that traded on his influence with his father.
Related:Z.H.: Senate Committee Verifies Bobulinski Evidence On Bidens (So Why Is MSM Covering It Up?)
Have you noticed the market volatility? Traders have learned how to take the other side of the FED propping it up high. This isn't market volatility due to uncertainty before the election. Some people know what's going on and how to use it against these creeps, I think. Now, if so, that's some real troubles they face.
ReplyDeleteAnd if the election result is inconclusive, watch out. Electoral college shenanigans, riots, covid epidemic rampant, sucessionism -- Maybe Alaska will join with Canada's Western separatists: God's frozen people.
DeleteThis is wild speculation on my part, but I wouldn't be surprised if the election results are already known by someone.
ReplyDeleteI voted a week or two ago, and I was probably a bit of a procrastinator.
Back in the good old days, we had an "election day." The networks used to call the results relatively early in the evening. Sometimes it was before Alaskans had finished voting. We've always felt our votes don't count for much. But the point I wanted to make is that they often know just by the early results what the outcome is going to be.
I received three or four requests from the government to vote by mail or online before I finally decided what the heck, why not. I also received little notices from some organization which I believe was not the government, about voting early. One of them gave my voting history since 2008 or 2012 or something. I sat out the 2012 election and so according to whoever that was, my voting history is "average." I guess this was to prod me into making improvements and definitely vote this time around. Interesting.
It was also kind of funny...All of the government missives were postage paid by the US government, out of the pocket of taxpayers. Yet the envelope provided to return my vote required a stamp. I used the last stamp I had about a year ago. I bought those stamps maybe ten years ago. I thought about tossing the thing into the garbage, but finally broke down and made a special trip to the post office to buy one and get that in the mail. I could have voted online, though. It made me wonder if it was a little disincentive to people to vote by mail. Now consider this: a lot of people are voting early and voting online.
The government internet activities always seem to be several steps behind what the smart guy sharks are able to hack or manipulate to their advantage. It is, I would say a matter of national security at stake, but as you've often said, the nation is no longer being preserved.
I have never heard any Britisher talk about the mass emigration of native stock from the British isles following WWII, and then followed by the mass immigration to the British isles, of people of so many other races, and so numerously. The emigration wasn't succeeded by the immigration by a great number of years.
ReplyDeleteI have been wondering about your take on Queen Elizabeth appearing neutral in contrast to Prince Charles. She has been a Bilderberg member for some time now. In other words, it could be Prince Charles has her backing in his current political stances.
I'm wondering what you think about these things.
Britain's fertility rate fell below the replacement rate n 1930, dipped to a low of 1.79 in 1935 and remaining below the replacement rate until 1945 after which it rose to a peak of 2.85 in 1965 before slumping well below replacement by 1980. Thus, prior to 1980, Britain was seen to be overcrowded with a growing surplus of population that was best encouraged to emigrate, with cheap passage to Canada and Australia financed by government. Hence the cost to an emigrant for a passage by cruise ship to Australia being five pounds.
ReplyDeleteVarious factors must account for the decline in emigration. The progressive decline in the number of young adults, and not least important, the Vietnam war which meant the liklihood of young male emigrants being conscripted for military service in both Australia and the US.
What the Queen thinks, if anything much, I don't know, but I doubt it matters as long as she keeps her trap shut. Prince Philip attended some Bilderberger meetings, but that could have been out of curiosity or for purely social reasons -- the thing was set up by Prince Bernhart of the Netherlands, presumably a relative of Philip's.
As to why the post WW2 British emigration was followed by a mass influx of non-British to Britain, this reflects the triumph of the globalist treason class headed by Ted Heath, who took Britain into the European Common Market on a false prospectus, and followed by Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, Tony Blair, David Cameron, Thereason May and now Alex Johnson, aka, BoJo. These people see themselves as members of a global elite. They have no allegiance to the British nation. They like to rub shoulders with Russian oligarchs, Chinese sweatshop owners, and Indian billionaires, while holding the British hoy polloy in contempt: people, that is, to be replaced by more energetic, ambitious settlers from around the world. And the more the merrier, since wealth in Britain since WW2 has mainly been acquired through property development, hence the need to drive up the population and send property prices sky high.
DeleteThose are factors I've never considered. Thanks.
ReplyDelete