So Trump was right: the election was rigged. And our next one will be too

This article is being censored by Twitter. 

Rod Liddle writes in the Times UK:

To what extent, do you think, is Joe Biden abiding by his solemn election pledge to “undo the moral and national shame of the previous administration”? You can judge for yourself by the television pictures of terrified Haitian refugees on the US-Mexico border being horse-whipped by mounted American rangers.

Trump did not do anything like that. If he had attempted to, Hollywood and the partisan coastal media would have imploded in a plasma of outrage. And yet Biden has largely escaped their censure.

I’m not sure, either, that the little old business in Afghanistan entirely banished America’s moral and national shame. Nor Biden’s inability to remember where the hell he is or who he is talking to; nor his geopolitical pig ignorance or his tendency to doze off at crucial moments. I think, in answer to my original question, that America’s “moral and national shame” is absolutely thriving under the present incumbent, perhaps hitting levels not seen since James Buchanan was in office.

The American public is slowly waking up to the fact that they are being led by an ineffectually devious, senile halfwit. Donald Trump is back in the lead in the opinion polls. Imagine how awful a president must be if people would rather that sack of meat with mittens were back in charge.

Soon the public will wake up to something even more unpleasant and sinister: that the last presidential election was a fraud, rigged by big business, the labour unions and, more than anything, the media and the tech companies. If that election had taken place in any other country, it would have been called “unfree”. And, as more and more evidence emerges, it terrifies me that the same thing could happen here.

What, you argue, the BBC deliberately withholds stories damaging to its preferred party or candidate? Facebook and co refuse to carry news stories harmful to the opposition because they class them as “false news”? Yes, I think you see my point.

We already knew, even as Biden was declaring victory, that Facebook and Twitter had cut off Donald Trump’s access to the electorate. He was deliberately rendered voiceless. Before then, they — and the national media — had smothered stories alleging the Biden family’s peddling of influence and Biden’s crackhead son and his dubious business interests in Ukraine. False news, we were informed. Nope, not all of it was false at all, it transpired.

What we didn’t know until we were told in February this year, courtesy of Time magazine, was that there actually was a conspiracy — a secret coalition of chief executives, labour unions, left-wing pressure groups and media companies — to manage what information was available to the voting public. Its aim, as The Wall Street Journal put it, was to “suppress unwanted elements of US political conversation”. What a wonderful phrase.

Time magazine reported this as if the cabal — it called the arrangement a cabal — had been acting heroically. To save the US public from making the same mistake again and electing that Brobdingnagian boor — and to do so by suppressing stories favourable to him.

Now we discover that General Mark Milley, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, was also conspiring against the president. Twice Milley called Chinese diplomats to let them know that he would countermand any order from Trump to attack China — which seems to a lot of US conservatives to be an act of pure treason. Milley also went behind his president’s back to connive with the Democrat leader of the House, Nancy Pelosi.

The reasoning for this was that Trump was “unhinged” — a familiar notion peddled by the media for the four years of his presidency. Was he? I don’t know. He didn’t seem terribly hinged to me, but then Americans rarely do. But more unhinged than your average American — or Joe Biden? Whatever the case, that election one year ago was plainly rigged. Not by fraudulent postal votes. But by an affluent elite conspiring, brutally at times, to ensure that the American public heard only one side of the story.

What worries me most is that so few liberal commentators seem capable of understanding that this was a grotesque manipulation of democracy. And yet surely they must see it, no matter how appalling Trump seemed to them (and indeed, quite often, to me). Instead, those very acts that subverted democracy are depicted as valorous.

The author of that article in Time said the conspirators “were not rigging the election; they were fortifying it”. Wow. Isn’t that a little chilling? And are you looking forward to a “fortified” general election over here?

image_pdfimage_print

4 Responses

  1. Well of course it was rigged, Rebecca. The proof is that I lost. NONE OF THIS WOULD HAVE HAPPENED IF THEY’D JUST STOPPED THE [expletive deleted] COUNT.

  2. “Well of course it was rigged, Rebecca. The proof is that I lost. NONE OF THIS WOULD HAVE HAPPENED IF THEY’D JUST STOPPED THE [expletive deleted] COUNT.”

    You’re right – they stopped the count simultaneously in 5 swing states for hours because Trump got way more votes than the was expected. I’m a chief election judge in my state and we never, ever stop counting until we are done. Total f..ing fraud, buddy, but you are smart enough to know that, right?

  3. The claim Mr. Galt is repeating about “stopped counting” was debunked last November and is completely false.

    politifact (dot) com/factchecks/2020/nov/04/facebook-posts/battleground-states-did-not-stop-counting-votes-el/

  4. Nice try: “debunked” & “completely false” are fine words of course and used to mean something when speaking about facts. But in recent years honest discourse has become so debased by the press & social media that it is virtually impossible for the man in the street to be able to verify or trust “facts”. One of the best recent examples of this was the so-called lab-leak theory. We, the public, were informed in early 2020 that the idea that Covid came out a laboratory was utterly false and baseless. Anyone suggesting otherwise was ridiculed by the media as a deranged conspiracy theorist: YouTube took down videos, social media posts were censored and we were all obliged to subscribe to the “truth”, backed up by “the science”. Fast forward 15 months and the senile leader of the US declared abruptly to the world that the lab-leak theory was entirely plausible and a thorough investigation was needed! This new truth was instantly and enthusiastically adopted and propagated by the media: old articles & posts were doctored or removed. And almost overnight, we were presented with a new truth & a new “science”; all “fact-based” of course.

    The current trend is to trash any comment sceptical of mainstream “evidence-based” reporting as “baseless” and “false”. Think of the Hunter Biden laptop (“Russian disinformation”), Trump’s “Russia collusion”, Russian bounties paid for US soldiers in Afghanistan or the “murder” of Brian Sicknick (the single law-enforcement casualty of the Jan 6 “insurrection”). The real truth, or bits of it, generally takes time to trickle out. And we now know, finally, that all the afore-mentioned stories were, well … baseless !

    And by the way, providing a “factchecker” link as proof is rather like quoting Pravda as a reliable source on, say, the Chernobyl disaster. Factcheckers are ten to the dozen on the internet. And all of them are either directly tainted ideologically or manipulated by commercial interests (which frequently represents some ideological interest).

    It is possible, probable even, that MA is correct in the particular claim he makes in his comment. But there is no easy way of confirming this. The primary media sources we used to trust to deliver us facts – however unpleasant – so that we could draw our own conclusions are now simply organs of “correct” opinion & conveyers of “narratives”. No mainstream media showed the slightest interest in digging into the dirty details after the election. The preferred candidate had “won” and it was time to move on. More to the point, egg on face had to be avoided: because the narrative that Trump would suffer a resounding defeat was proved utterly false. The election was desperately close. You can’t fool all the people all the time!

    The simple truth is that there WERE highly questionable procedural & structural discrepancies in several key swing states in the last election: the media and Big Tech bias was overwhelmingly in favour of one party; censorship of opposing views was brutally efficient; and vast resources were allocated to ensure the desired result. Vladimir Putin would have been proud of this effort. In short, as the author of the article points out, the election was rigged. Which is why the story is censored/banned on Twitter!
    Think about it: a corporation run by a man with the intellect of a retarded flea presumes to be the arbiter of “truth”. This is where we are.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

New English Review Press is a priceless cultural institution.
                              — Bruce Bawer

The perfect gift for the history lover in your life. Order on Amazon US, Amazon UK or wherever books are sold.

Order on Amazon, Amazon UK, or wherever books are sold.

Order on Amazon, Amazon UK or wherever books are sold.

Order on Amazon or Amazon UK or wherever books are sold


Order at Amazon, Amazon UK, or wherever books are sold. 

Order at Amazon US, Amazon UK or wherever books are sold.

Available at Amazon US, Amazon UK or wherever books are sold.

Send this to a friend