Connect with us

Conspiracy Theory

“Hillary Clinton Email” and big-tech’s misguided desire to protect us from ourselves

Published

on

Below is the transcript of the video.

Today, we will not be discussing the conspiracy theory that big tech is attempting to protect us from “fake news” by censoring stories, channels, topics, and individuals. We’re not discussing this conspiracy theory because it’s no longer a theory. It’s demonstrable through testing and most big tech firms such as Facebook, Twitter, and Google readily admit they are removing anything they deem to be inappropriate.

This has all been brewing for years but spit hit the pan when the unthinkable happened. Donald Trump won the 2016 election, causing most of these big tech companies to privately vow, never again. They blame themselves for allowing the people to be misled and vowed to themselves that they will do what they can going forward to make sure the unacceptable elements of society will no longer use their platforms to spread disinformation and lies.

The latest identified iteration of this blatant form of intellectual censorship was discovered on Reddit when a user tried to get Google to recommend the phrase “Hillary Clinton Email” without success. So, let’s try it for ourselves.

[Test confirmed]

For those who don’t know, the recommendation engine used by Google and pretty much every search engine and social media site is designed to offer recommendations to your queries based on what you start typing. We all use it and take it for granted. The algorithm that delivers the recommended results is based on the combined data from search attempts combined with your own search history. We did it in incognito mode so my own search history wouldn’t come into play.

It’s ignorant to believe that so few people are searching for the phrase “Hillary Clinton Email” that it didn’t trigger the algorithm to recommend it when we first started typing her name, let alone when we types E-m-a-i and l. So yes, this is indisputable proof that a topic Google doesn’t want anyone to investigate, namely Hillary’s email scandal, has been wiped from their recommendation engine.

This isn’t news to most of you. We’ve been aware of such activities for a long time. What I’d like to discuss is why this happens in the first place. Is it a form of intellectual censorship? Absolutely. What are they censoring? They’re trying to purge anything within the collective conscience that goes against the various narratives they want the people to believe in. One of those narratives is that Hillary Clinton and the American people were robbed, which is the only acceptable explanation for why Donald Trump is President in their eyes.

Frankly, this is minor. I’m less concerned about this one than some of the other narratives they’re pushing, such as globalism, open borders, anti-Judeo-Christian beliefs, and the various “settled sciences” that they feel no longer warrant debate such as climate change or evolution. This systematic censorship subverts much needed discourse and relegates many of the lucid voices in our society to the same categories where they place the despicable.

There are certain things that must be censored for the sake of the harm they do. I am not one who believes in absolute freedom of speech to include child pornography or how to turn household items into mustard gas, but that’s a far cry from the other things they’ve chosen to censor, such as Hillary Clinton’s email scandal.

They are trying to protect us from ourselves because in their own minds, they know better. They’ve seen what can happen when people start pushing Pizzagate or Fizzledrip. They’re worried that flatearthers are going to corrupt our nation’s children with fears they’ll run into the Antarctic ice wall no matter which direction they travel. They think if we’re looking into Hillary Clinton, they shouldn’t recommend her email as a topic of research because, in their minds, there’s nothing to see here.

We don’t need to be protected. The internet is loaded with false notions and it’s up to the people to decide what they want to believe and what they want to dismiss. Big tech shouldn’t impose their own superior sensibilities on us just because they think most people are sheep. That may be true, but so what? Let us be sheep. We’re okay with it.

But here’s the thing, and it’s what I fear even more than big tech’s censorship. As private companies, Washington DC should NOT be attempting to tell them how to operate their businesses. The people can choose to use whatever platform we want to use to communicate, search, and socialize. I’d rather work as a people to expose the blatant intellectual censorship these companies are perpetrating rather than calling on government to make them stop. It may be the easy way out and I can imagine many on both the right and the left cheering if DC started regulating these companies as publishers rather than platforms. But that would be a very short-term fix. If you think censorship is bad now, just wait until DC gets their hands on the mute button. Things will become exponentially worse.

Google might be easy. Facebook might be fun. Twitter might be loud. But the power they all share is theirs because we choose to give it to them. We don’t need DC regulating the censors. We simply need to exercise our individual right of choice.

I’m JD Rucker. Thank you for listening.

0

Conspiracy Theory

Whistleblower worked with Joe Biden when he was VP: Report

Published

on

Whistleblower worked with Joe Biden when he was VP Report

When it was revealed a couple of days ago that the whistleblower accusing President Trump of quid pro quo with Ukraine actually worked with a current Democratic candidate, speculation was rampant. But the revelation of which candidate it was makes way too much sense. Of course it was Joe Biden. We should have realized it the whole time.

We already knew he was a CIA agent, which potentially put him working with the White House. Biden is the only candidate who has ever worked out of the White House. We also know the subject of the call with Ukraine included discussions about Biden, so a sympathizer hearing about the call would be naturally compelled to blow the whistle if he thought it would help the candidate he knew and favored.

Now, we have the pieces of the puzzle coming together.

Joe Biden worked with whistleblower when he was vice president, officials reveal

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/joe-biden-worked-with-whistleblower-when-he-was-vice-president-officials-revealAs an experienced CIA official on the NSC with the deep knowledge of Ukraine that he demonstrated in his complaint, it is probable that the whistleblower briefed Biden and likely that he accompanied him on Air Force Two during at least one of the six visits the 2020 candidate made to the country.

A former Trump administration official, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss intelligence matters, said Biden’s work on foreign affairs brought him into close proximity with the whistleblower either at the CIA or when he was detailed to the White House.

“This person, after working with Biden, may feel defensive towards him because he feels [Biden] is being falsely attacked. Maybe he is even talking to Biden’s staff,” the former official said. “Maybe it is innocent, maybe not.”

No, it’s almost certainly not innocent. We know the whistleblower first took his concerns to Representative Adam Schiff’s staff and that Schiff lied about it. Now that we know the whistleblower worked with Biden, it makes sense that he would want to protect his former boss.

Could there be more to it than that? If the whistleblower participated in work Biden did in Ukraine, it’s possible that he wouldn’t want his own actions or actions of others he worked with exposed in an investigation by the Ukrainians. There’s no indication that anyone other than Biden was involved in wrongdoing, but it’s conspicuous that the whistleblower may have been part of the Ukrainian entourage.

Every new detail that emerges about the whistleblower and the Democrats pushing impeachment paints it as more suspicious. What else are they trying to hide? Is impeachment a smokescreen as they cover their own trail of corruption?

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Conspiracy Theory

As Elizabeth Warren attacks Facebook, theories emerge that Joe Biden is the ‘tip of the iceberg’

Published

on

As Elizabeth Warren attacks Facebook theories emerge that Joe Biden is the tip of the iceberg

Candidates running for office often defend their opponents in an effort to seem fair. We saw this back and forth “goodwill” play out before the Iowa caucus in 2016 when Ted Cruz and Donald Trump defended each other regularly before the gloves came off. Now, Elizabeth Warren has gone after Facebook for not taking down a Trump campaign ad attacking the former Vice President for his role in pressuring Ukraine to fire the prosecutor investigating his son’s company.

Is this political goodwill and a launching pad for Warren to ramp up attacks on the social media giant, or is there more to the story?

“She’s less interested in protecting Biden and more interested in protecting herself and the DNC,” an aide to a Republican Senator said. “Their ties to Ukrainian corruption run deep. The last thing Warren wants is to be the nominee for a party that’s embroiled in the Obama administration’s nasty dealings with the previous Ukrainian government.”

The more we learn about the ties between Ukraine and the Democratic Party, the clearer the picture is becoming. We already heard the bombshell audio from the current anti-corruption chief in Ukraine saying that he helped Hillary Clinton in 2016. Could the whole Russia investigation have been a smokescreen to prevent the real collusion that took place from seeing the light of day?

Democrats already have progressive legacy media in their back pockets. Even The Hill article referenced above goes to great links to say there’s no evidence (other than Biden’s own words) that he pressured Ukraine for his son’s benefit. As they and the rest of mainstream media have been saying, it was just an administration policy to pressure Ukraine to drop the prosecutor because, “The Obama administration repeatedly said it sought to oust the prosecutor because of concerns he was not doing enough to root out corruption.”

Right. When was the last time the White House took such an interest in another country’s prosecutor doing an insufficient job? If you buy that story, there’s likely nothing that would convince you of wrongdoing by Democrats.

Unlike legacy media, social media is not necessarily under the Democrats’ control. Sure, big tech companies favor Democrats generally, but as their user base is responsible for spreading stories among their own connections, Democrats have no control over stories that go “viral.” Is this why Warren is so interested in keeping the Biden-Ukraine story from spreading on Facebook?

As an owner of a conservative news aggregator told our EIC earlier, Warren knows “Biden is just the tip of the iceberg.”

From the Russian hoax to the fake impeachment inquiry, Democrats have been radically intent on keeping attention away from their own dealings in Ukraine. Collusion is real, and Democrats are desperate to keep us from learning more about it.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Conspiracy Theory

Even the NY Times sees obvious corruption in Hunter Biden’s Ukrainian scandal

Published

on

Even the NY Times sees obvious corruption in Hunter Bidens Ukrainian scandal

Progressive mainstream media will play its part in trying to keep the focus of the fake impeachment inquiry on a phone call and a whistleblower’s complaint. In doing so, they will also avoid talking about Democratic corruption associated with Ukraine, including but not limited to Joe and Hunter Biden’s string of suspicious actions and circumstances. But eventually, something’s going to give. Pressure will mount as story after story is reported by conservative media while being ignored by their progressive counterparts at CNN, the Washington Post, MSNBC, and the NY Times.

There are honest journalists out there, even among progressives, who can only ignore the obvious for so long before they have to go off script and call out the Democrats. One such journalist is Peter Schweizer, an expert on government corruption. This whole Biden-Ukraine mess is right up his alley and the NY Times surprisingly printed his story about the clearly shady dealings the Bidens had with Ukraine and China.

Is the NY Times’ shield coming down? Are they experiencing a random moment of lucid journalistic principles? Was the presence of a different scandal involving Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell the required attack on a Republican necessary for justifying printing the story? Or, is it simply the fact that there are no laws currently on the books that would make Hunter Biden’s cushy job in Ukraine illegal enough to take a swipe at the (former) Democratic presidential frontrunner?

Schweizer, a champion for ending government corruption at home and abroad, wrote the book on the matter: “Secret Empires: How the American Political Class Hides Corruption and Enriches Family and Friends

Here’s the story:

What Hunter Biden Did Was Legal — And That’s the Problem

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/09/opinion/what-hunter-biden-did-was-legal-and-thats-the-problem.htmlWith the Russian invasion of Crimea in 2014, Joe Biden became point person in Ukraine as well. That same year, Hunter Biden landed a board position with the Ukrainian energy giant Burisma Holdings. Despite having no background in energy or Ukraine, the vice president’s son was paid as much as $50,000 a month, according to financial records. (He left the board in early 2019.)

Why would someone with so little experience be able to command such enormous payments? Joe Biden recently claimed, “I have never spoken to my son about his overseas business dealings.” But Hunter Biden admitted to The New Yorker that on one occasion, they had in fact discussed his work for Burisma: “Dad said, ‘I hope you know what you are doing,’ and I said, ‘I do.’” Moreover, a representative for BHR Partners has said that Hunter Biden introduced his father to one of the company’s founders during their December 2013 China trip.

Anyone who believes Hunter Biden would have landed such an opportunity if his dad wasn’t Vice President of the United States is delusional. Anyone who heard what Joe Biden said to the Council on Foreign Relations and claims they don’t smell anything fishy is being dishonest. These dots are not difficult to connect, even for Democrats.

The NY Times is starting to wonder. Americans should also be focusing on the real issues with the Ukrainian scandal. They were clearly pressured to act on behalf of a U.S. politician. But it wasn’t President Trump. The Bidens should be the ones in the hot seat.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Facebook

Trending