The 2024 Presidential Debate and Other Warning Signs
The 2024 Presidential Debate and Other Warning Signs
The Dems attack their best candidates
In the wake of the abysmal performance of Joe Biden in the first 2024 presidential debate, many are opining on whether this was a planned “hit job” by the Democrats to shoe in a new candidate.
Here at Brainjack, we’re struck by the road not taken by the Democratic party — a road littered with hit jobs, gaslighting, and lying — all with the slavish assistance of mainstream media.
Let’s start with the hit jobs.
They Could’ve Had a Rock Star
Consider: They could've had a rock star like Tulsi Gabbard — fit, thoughtful, well-spoken, highly intelligent, wise and open to counsel.
But instead Hillary Clinton smeared her with the phony "Russian asset" attack.
Gabbard as President would've been a JFK-level event: a young President uniting and galvanizing the entire nation behind an optimistic vision of the future.
Here’s how Gabbard responded to Clinton’s smear campaign:
But if they can falsely portray me as a traitor, then they can do it to anyone.
And in fact, that’s exactly the message they want to get across to you: that if you stand up against Hillary and the party power brokers, if you stand up to the rich and powerful elite and the war machine, they will destroy you and discredit your message.
But here is the truth. They will not intimidate us. They will not silence us.
Gabbard went on to call Hillary Clinton “the queen of the war mongers, embodiment of corruption, and personification of the rot that has sickened the Democratic party for so long.”
No Evidence Required
It’s astonishing that almost no one in the mainstream media requested that Hillary Clinton provide evidence of her claim. There are exceptions.1
That said, we could find no footage of any journalist, face-to-face with Hillary, asking for evidence. If our readers know of any, please share it.
Many media serfs dutifully amplified the smear. See this View episode where Hillary fans played the role of flying monkeys. (Also see this.)
Swaths of big media present what they want viewers to believe, rather than seeking the truth and presenting things as they are.
And it seems Americans are increasingly outsourcing their cognition to that media.
An “elitist cabal”
It’s not surprising that Gabbard left the Democratic party, saying it’s “under the complete control of an elitist cabal of warmongers driven by cowardly wokeness.”
An additional irony is that Gabbard is a military veteran, but even that didn’t prevent the smear campaign.
Throwing Kyrsten Sinema Under the Bus
The democrats also attacked rising star Kyrsten Sinema in multiple ways. And they ditched Andrew Yang.
Ironically, Sinema was Arizona’s first female senator.
Like Gabbard, Yang and Sinema are highly intelligent.
Not that we agree with all of those rising star's statements, but the point is they were fit, vibrant, effective.
Most importantly, they were open-minded and open to wise counsel.
They weren’t tools of the status quo.
Indeed they were so appealing they could win independents and even Republicans.
The Democratic Party is a Cancer Attacking Itself
We conclude that the Democratic party is like a cancer, attacking its healthiest, most capable younger members, when they dare question the old guard or status quo.
The party also seems like an old folks club that does favors for its elderly insiders. ("Joe thinks it's time for him to be president - ok, after Hillary runs it's your turn.")
It’s unlikely that an entity with this level of dysfunction and contempt will reform in any meaningful way.
In this, we could say that the party is a threat to democracy, even as they loudly proclaim they are ‘saving’ it.
“subversion of democracy”
After the debate, long-time supporter of the Democratic party, Chamath Palihapitiya warned:
The subversion of democracy is really the real threat to democracy . . . you have the right to elect a person . . . None of us are choosing to elect a shadow cabinet of handlers to run America. That’s not what any of us are signing up for.
In addition, entrepreneur David Friedberg, another long-time supporter of the party,2 revealed that in October 2023, he communicated with a senior party member about the need to replace Biden.
Friedberg’s concerns were dismissed.
In the podcast above, he said the media and the Democratic leadership have been lying to America because Biden’s decline was obvious for some time and widely discussed in social media.
There was a “coordinated effort to kind of obfuscate his decline,” observed Palihapitiya.
How ironic is it that the Democratic party claims that fighting “misinformation” and “disinformation” is an urgent priority, when it actively disseminates both?
When citizens are censored and smeared it’s easier for government to spread lies and maintain narrative control.
What About Republicans?
“What about the Republicans?” you might ask.
Ironically, the Trump voters we know, voted for him in 2016 in order to throw a molotov cocktail into the middle of the GOP, which they were disgusted with.
Yet there was little interest in media in exploring such motivations. This was a huge missed opportunity.
Instead, talking heads, including academics, pushed cartoonish and condescending theories about what Trump voters were all about, further alienating them.
These presentations simply highlighted the chasm between the elite classes and ordinary citizens.
Thoughtful reflection and reform were not on the table.
“Commodified Polarization”
As media analyst Andrey Mir put it, we got “commodified polarization.”
Former CIA analyst Martin Gurri, no fan of Trump, explains:
Not only was Trump opposed, but he was portrayed at every occasion in terrifying terms, as a demonic figure . . .
Gurri elaborates:
Post-journalism is a business model concealed behind an ideological stance. It sells a creed, an agenda, to like-minded believers . . .
. . . news is equally dependent on polarization to lure converts into the sacred garden beyond the paywall.
Andrey Mir coined the term post-journalism.
It’s worth exploring this Gurri interview with Mir, which includes:
. . . [M]ainstream media quickly learned to sell the approval or disapproval of Trump as news. They started soliciting subscriptions as donations to the cause of democracy. This in turn began influencing newsroom policy.
Thus journalism has mutated into post-journalism in just five or six years. Journalism sought truth; post-journalism has traded truth for justice. Journalism explored what existed; post-journalism judges if the existing is right. Journalism described; post-journalism prescribes. Journalism looked for the world as it is; post-journalism covers the world as it should be.
Amplifying Fear
The mainstream media coverage of Trump ignored the existing checks and balances that prevent any single figure in government, including a president, from destroying democracy. 3
Whether you see Trump as a patriotic savior of America or as an insufferable buffoon, neither he, nor his followers, were ever close to overthrowing the government. The notion is absurd.
In our view, this overheated coverage culminates in the final scene of Civil War, which features the president dragged from his Oval Office desk, and shot on the carpet like a rabid coyote.
That scene is a summary execution of a president. There’s nothing lawful or “democratic” about it. It’s a tactic of dictatorships.
Nonetheless, the movie may normalize it in the minds of some citizens concerned about ‘saving democracy.’
Ironically, one of the threats of commodified polarization is that individuals will begin to unthinkingly embrace anti-democratic actions (like censorship or violence) in the name of preserving “democracy” or the “constitutional republic.”
Let’s be clear:
Anti-democratic actions are the paving stones to anti-democratic systems.
Anti-democratic systems are totalitarian regimes.
Fascism and Marxism are not of the “right” or “left” - they are 2 sides of the same totalitarian coin, which is to say they are anti-democratic systems.
What Does the Future Hold?
Despite all these trends, political reform continues to be ignored by the majority of all elected leaders on the right and left and the mainstream media.
Elected officials, including Biden, stoke division with hysteria-level fear-mongering.
This is in spite of the fact most Americans are colorblind and compassionate and want the same things, such as a safe place to live, stable employment, and better prospects for their children.
The elites cling to power by sowing division. We’re reminded of Jesus’s words, when he warned, “Every kingdom divided against itself is laid waste . . .” 4
So, what can you do?
Speak the truth. As Supreme Court justice Louis Brandeis observed, “Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants.”
It breaks the spell of confusion and sends the cockroaches5 scurrying.
An exception is CNN’s Jake Tapper who at the end of this segment said “Bring the evidence if you have it, and if not, don’t say that someone is a Russian asset.” (Hillary was not present in that segment.)
Likewise, Erin Burnett of CNN called the smear a “Russian conspiracy theory.” In that segment, Van Jones said:
“She’s [Hillary] playing a very dangerous game . . . what the Russians do is they spread disinformation to get us divided against each other. That is what just happened. Just throw out some infromation, disinformation, smear somebody . . .
She [Hillary] just came out against a sitting U.S. Congresswoman, a decorated war veteran, and somebody’s who’s running for the nomination of our party, with just a complete smear and no facts. . . If you’ve got real evidence, come forward with it, but if you’re just going to smear people casually on podcasts you’re playing right into the Russian’s hands.
As the end of the Van Jones episode makes clear, Clinton back-peddled the smear.
In the All-In podcast, Friedberg made clear that he makes no donations to campaigns or parties. By “support” we mean he generally seems to favor the Democrats and wants reform.
[Updated: July 3, 2024] Contrary to a new round of hysteria and fear-mongering, the Supreme Court ruling on immunity doesn’t open the door to death squads and assassinations. The ruling held that immunity for POTUS is “for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority.”
Congress can still try, convict, and remove the President from office for treason, bribery, and high crimes and misdemeanors.
And, if POTUS acts in a lawless manner, the courts may determine that. "In Youngstown, for instance, we held that President Truman exceeded his constitutional authority when he seized most of the Nation’s steel mills." (See pg. 19 of the ruling on immunity.)
Regarding the fevered speculations about assassinations, ironically Obama’s administration, where Biden served as VP, argued it had “unreviewable authority” to “kill Americans the executive branch has unilaterally determined to pose a threat.” (Source: ACLU) So we see many talking heads are reactive rather than principled.
And while both Pelosi and Biden insisted “No one is above the law” that’s exactly what the ruling says: “The President is not above the law.” (See pg. 8 of the ruling.)
The ruling rejected Trump’s claims of broad immunity, remanding several related issues back to District Court: “Trump asserts a far broader immunity than the limited one the Court recognizes.” (Pg. 7 of the ruling.)
You may prefer Barrett’s approach, but what we have can’t be truthfully said to be disastrous.
Remember, politicians on both sides of the aisle have long used fear-mongering to obtain control over people’s thoughts, emotions, and actions.
We need politicians on both sides of the aisle to turn the ‘temperature’ way down. This demagoguery of recent years is highly dangerous and may influence some to violence.
Additionally, the Democrats are intentionally attempting to delegitimize the institution of the Supreme Court. Once you delegitimize institutions that are required to maintain a free civilization, you unleash chaos which you cannot control.
And the instigators’ commitment to the Constitution and rule of law will be seen as feigned.
Matthew 12:25. Note that in this passage Jesus is addressing the Pharisees, who, after seeing him heal a demoniac, sought to attribute the supernatural event to Beelzebub (i.e., Satan) rather than God.