Was the Hunter Biden's Laptop Story Censorship a Coup on American Democracy?

What makes a coup d'état a coup? The Wikipedia defines it as: "a seizure and removal of a government and its powers. Typically, it is an illegal seizure of power by a political faction, politician, cult, rebel group, military, or a dictator"

But what if we consider a coup, not only a removal, but also a prevention that somebody will reach the government? What if a group controlling the media of a country would effectively hide a fact from the citizens that could change the result of an election?

Business Insider: 'Hunter Biden laptop mystery hints at a Russian disinformation operation, source tells Insider'
https://www.businessinsider.com/biden-laptop-real-fake-russian-intelligence-2020-10

The Washington Post: 'Facebook and Twitter take unusual steps to limit spread of New York Post story'
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/10/15/facebook-twitter-hunter-biden/

CNN: 'The anatomy of the New York Post’s dubious Hunter Biden story'
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/10/18/media/new-york-post-hunter-biden-reliable/index.html

Politico: 'Hunter Biden story is Russian disinfo, dozens of former intel officials say'
https://t.co/fk6YlQ0dBh

NPR: 'Why haven't you seen any stories from NPR about the NY Post's Hunter Biden story? Read more in this week's newsletter➡'
https://twitter.com/nprpubliceditor/status/1319281101223940096

WSJ: 'Hunter Biden’s Laptop Is Finally News Fit to Print.
The press that ignored the story in 2020 admits that it’s real.'
https://www.wsj.com/articles/all-the-news-thats-finally-fit-to-print-hunter-biden-laptop-new-york-post-new-york-times-joe-biden-11647637814

Keep in mind that "6 Corporations Control 90% Of The Media In America".

Now imagine if all the corporations (controlling the media and social networks) that censored the Hunter Biden's laptop story had previously agreed that Biden had to win... Would that qualify as a coup d'état?

Now remember that these corporations met regularly in absolute privacy to discuss what should be the future of the World (including the US) at meetings like the Bildelberg Meetings, the Trilateral Commission, the CFR and others.

When professional skeptics get it wrong

When the Afghanistan government collapsed, people were looking at the image that portrayed the old regime fall. People were trying to find the photo of the helicopter on the rooftop. One of the most popular photos was of a crowded plane full or refugees trying to flee the country.

There was a similar photo that was also distributed:

 

 

But this photo had been taken in the Philippines in 2013, and was quickly identified as a fake but many fact-checking sites.

Unexpectedly (or not?), as reported by Jordi Llàtzer in his podcast Espurna, some people began to tag the first photo, the real photo, as a fake, supposedly confusing the two photos. Was this accidental? It would be a very smart move to publish a similar fake photo, to create disinformation, if you don't want the legit one to be distributed.

Another example of what we could call failed skepticism is the recurrent debate around the novel (and movie) "Picnic at Hanging Rock". 

 

Being a fan of the movie myself, I had researched the web to find out if the novel and film were based on true events or not. It turned out that they were not. The verdict was that the story was fiction, because no newspaper of the time referred to it. But what if the skeptics had looked in the wrong place? An investigation by Janelle McCulloch, author of "Beyond The Rock: The Life Of Joan Lindsay And The Mystery Of Picnic At Hanging Rock", discovered evidences that the story could have been inspired by a real event:

"McCulloch then turned to online archives and found a document distributed to Victorian police stations at the time. This police gazette detailed that a couple of girls had disappeared in the late 1800s – their ages and descriptions matching that of the novel."

Midnight Mass and its view on Christianity

Having seen a couple of episodes of Netflix's 'Midnight Mass', I have opposed feelings: on one hand I love the eerie feeling of the series, but I hate the simplistic character development, specially Bev, the ignorant and evil catholic puritan, in contrast with the cultured tolerant and integrated muslim. Oh, and let's not forget how the evil puritan convinced everybody to take the oil companies' money, and give it to her (another nice prejudice including silly fishermen who can be fooled about how much money two years of fishing are worth...).

Midnight Mass if full of those common believes about Christianity and Catholicism that makes you wonder if the creator of the series really believes them, or it is just showing what he thinks the audience of Netflix wants to see...

For instance, about the number of Catholic, which the main character, makes a speech about, churches in North America (where the series comes from) here we have some real data:

 

Source

It is also funny how this main character claims that the idea "God works in mysterious ways" is basically making people miserable. It is funny because many studies say the opposite, that religious people are happier and more satisfied with their lives [1][2]. We could go on discussing how the lack of faith, the lack of spirituality, are leaving people emptier, easy prey for the elites who control the culture, the discourse (in another post we will discuss how the modern discourse resembles a religion).

It is not less funny how the mainstream media (for which Netflix is currently the paradigm) presents a parallel reality which, in fact, has become the only reality for most of the population, the 'official' reality.

In the 'official' reality, Muslims are oppressed and Christians are the oppressors. In the actual reality, Christians are being banished from most of the countries where Islam is the main religion.

The increase in the U.A.E. and Saudi Arabia
is due to exiles from neighbor countries.

 

 

But you may say, this is not what happens in the 'Western World'. The fact is, 'Midnight Mass' could not have been made with a mosque instead of a Catholic church, not in any Muslim country, but neither, and this is important, in any Western 'free' country.

 

UPDATE Oct 20, 2021

We could discuss why Islam and democracy are incompatible, but that would require more time, but for you thinking that Christian extremists are dangerous, here is some data about the average Muslim in Europe.

There is a speech in the Midnight Mass from the sheriff Sharif:

"Muslims believe that Jesus is a prophet of God, and that the Injeel, the Bible, was revealed to him as the Torah was revealed to Moses before that. See, we love Jesus. And we love the message that was revealed to him. But we also believe, after the time of Jesus, thanks to the interference of men, there were deviations in Christianity. People altered the message. Priests, popes, kings. That’s why there’s so, so many versions of the Bible. People got in there, made their changes. Okay, we do though believe that the Bible contains some of the original word of God. But we also believe that God revealed the Quran as the final message. Never to be altered. To reassert the original revelations of the previous prophets." 

So basically he is explaining why Christianity is wrong and Islam is the true religion... So much for an atheist show. People tend to miss a point that comes from this speech: "God revealed the Quran as the final message". Muslims believe the Quran contains the words of Allah, the words dictated by Allah himself. This has a practical effect: there is no adapting the Quran to the modern world, because it is the word of Allah, there is only adapting the World to the Quran. This is one of the reasons explaining the next chart.

It is ironic that to find a criticism of the positive interpretation of Islam in Midnight Mass you have to go to Muslim sources:

The writers of Midnight Mass tried to present Islam as more reluctant to miracles than Christianity, but as Muslims themselves note, it is not the case. As put in here: "Along with the village’s doctor, Sarah (Annabeth Gish), and sheriff, Hassan (Rahul Kohli), these characters bring a more clear-eyed perspective to the bizarre happenings on Crockett—their reactions are filtered through the prisms of atheism, science, and, in Hassan’s case, Islam, which in some corners of the island is demonized." The good guys are atheists or muslims.

And in the end the church has to be burned to save the (outside) World, the priest throws his collar, and the Muslim boy converted to Christianity goes back to pray to Allah with his father. The perfect Netflix world.

Some thoughts on Allen v. Farrow: a failure of the system

'Allen v. Farrow' has caused a lot of controversy, mainly because it is rare to see the dark side of a Hollywood family, explained by the members of the family. But the issue laying underneath is the same as in 'Leaving Neverland': accusations of child abuse that took place several decades ago.

At first glance, this seems a really admirable task: to hold accountable those who haven't been held accountable (even if it is after their death). As I usually remind, abuses against children is one of the few (if not the only) passage in the New Testament were Jesus justifies something that could be interpreted as a death penalty:

'If anyone causes one of these little ones—those who believe in me—to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.' Matthew 18:6

...And I have to say that I would support the literal interpretation of this passage.

But if to think a little more about it, there are several things that shoudl concern us. The first question is why now? Why not before? Why not 20,25,30 years ago, when this abuses allegedly happened? Why these abuses, that arrived to court, were not properly investigated?

And this brings us to the first thing that I feel is missing from these documentaries: a more critical approach at the system that allows these alleged crimes to go unpunished, and especially out-of-court settlements. We saw this also in Harvey Wenstein case.

One thing that is completely undeniable is that if these allegations are true, this a true complete failure of the system. Yet, when you look at these documentaries, they present it just as some celebrity who got away with some "unappropiate behaviour", like this, if it was true, is not one of the most horrible crimes that can ever be commited.

But also the press and the media are to be questioned as why they didn't act in the moment. I remember hearing once as an excuse that "Michael Jackson was too powerful" and I thought what means "too powerful"? Was Michael Jackson too powerful for the CNN or The New York Times? Or were they just afraid too antagonize his production company, and it just a question of money? It seems like this documentaries are made when the accused person is not making big money anymore for the industry.

And then comes what seems the take-home message of these documentaries: no justice was done then, but now we make this documentary and we set the record right, we tell you how evil is/was this person and now there is justice. No, there isn't. Justice is not made by documentary makers, justice is made in the courts. To make a documentary about a crime commited 25 years ago that went unpunished is a failure of the system. But it feels like the companies that produce this documentaries are saying "it doesn't matter that justice was not made in the right moment, that this person was not condemned. we have made justice now". And it is something that it is also scary, media corporations presenting themselves as this sort of supreme court but that responds not to people but to a CEO and their shareholders.

The only point of such documentaries is to point out why this went unpunished and what we can do to solve it. From my interest in this subject I have come to the conclusion that there is always someone who knows, someone who suspects, someone who could and should have done something, that if these predators commit their crimes is because somebody has looked the other way (conciously or uncounciously). This is the way we stop this crimes, and not by making documentaries 20 years later.

Is HBO's documentary about 'Heaven's Gate' an excuse to attack Christianism?

One thing that really stands out in CNN's docuseries about the 'Heaven's Gate' cult for HBO is how it desperately tries to link the cult with Christianity. But maybe this explains why the CNN produced a documentary about a cult that was news almost 25 years ago... 

Let me share just a couple of thoughts about it.

Watching it left me wondering why Clay Tweel's documentary about a millenarist UFO cult is so filled with comparisons between this cult and Christianism... I have seen many documentaries about Heaven's Gate and about other cults (several about Jim Jones' Peoples Temple, for instance) and never seen anything similar before... One thing is that the cult founders took elements from Christianism in the origins of the cult; and another is that, in the documentary, every element of the cults' history and characteristics is compared to some element of Christianism.

For instance, the comparison by sociologist Reza Aslan of the change in the group's beliefs after Bonnie Nettles' death (one of the two founders), with an alleged change in what he calls the "Jesus movement" (sic) after Jesus' crucifixion, arguing that Jesus' death contradicted the "Jewish definition of the Messiah"... Well that is why it's called Christianism and not Judaism, isn't it?

The same Reza Aslan claims that the concept "cognitive dissonance" was created in the theology field, what is false...  In fact, Aslan, when he speaks about cognitive dissonance in the Heaven's Gate cult and in early Christianism, shows a perfect example of cognitive dissonance himself, by ignoring the fact that Jesus' figure was a rupture from established Judaism... An evidence of this is that Jesus' fate was decided by the Jewish people, not by the Roman authorities, when they choose him over Barabbas to be executed. So he was a rupturist figure from the "Jewish definition of the Messiah" already before his death.

While I was looking at it I saw other parallelisms that could have been brought up but were ignored.

Regarding the genderless society proposed by Marshall Applewhite, the same day I write this, we learnt that:

Mr. Potato Head brand goes gender-neutral, dropping "Mr." title https://t.co/R5sMUIt869

— CBS News (@CBSNews) February 27, 2021

And what about millenarism, and Applewhite's meassage 'follow me or you are doomed'...?

Sobre el mal, el Diablo y los demonios...

Santiago Camacho es uno de los podcasters más exitosos de habla española con su podcast Días Extraños, dónde aborda temas casi siempre interesantes y plantea a menudo reflexiones sumamente acertadas. No fue así en el último programa "La arquología del mal", dónde un relato sobre la historia de la figura del diablo (o los demonios en general) se cerró con la siguiente conclusión:

"Los seres humanos necesitan al diablo, tal vez porque es algo más cómodo, más fácil, más tranquilizador. Sí, he dicho tranquilizador, porque es mucho más fácil, mucho mas cómodo, mucho más tranquilizador pensar que ese mal del mundo tiene una causa externa, que hay un ser maléfico que busca nuestra perdición; eso es preferible que afrontar la dura verdad: que ese mal que achacamos al diablo en realidad reside en el corazón de los seres humanos." Santiago Camacho en Días Extraños [37:18]

Esta no es una idea nueva, y es una idea que nunca viene acompañada de una explicación: ¿porqué es más cómodo pensar que existe el mal (porque cuando hablamos del diablo hablamos de la representación del mal, y no tanto de una entidad) que pensar que el mal está en los hombres?

La realidad es justo la contraria. Aunque a nivel filosófico puede podríamos discutir si es más cómodo pensar que el mal es algo externo al ser humano, a nivel práctico es más fácil pensar lo contrario: los seres humanos solemos tener una visión muy benevolente de nuestra propia moralidad, dicho de otro modo, en general pensamos que somos muy buenos, y en general pensamos que nuestras malas acciones están justificadas. Y lo mismo pensamos de las personas a las que queremos. Si el mal es algo propio al ser humano, la mayoría pensarán que yo y las personas que a las que quiero somos inmunes a él, nosotros somos de los buenos. Ahora bien, si el mal es algo exógeno, nadie está fuera de peligro, cualquier persona, por buena que sea, puede ser "poseida" por el mal... No parece precisamente una idea tranquilizadora sinó más bien lo contrario... 

No soy un experto en el tema, pero mi visión del cristianismo (y cuando hablo de cristianismo me refiero a las enseñanzas de Cristo - es decir, el Nuevo Testamente) es que el tanto el bien como el mal residen en los hombres,  y el Diablo 'sólo' nos tienta para que hágamos el mal, es decir en el equilibrio entre el bien y el mal en el alma de los hombres, el Diablo intenta inclinar la balanza hacia el mal, pero los hombres en el cristianismo, a diferencia de la interpretación de Santiago Camacho, no son inocentes.

La idea planteada por Santiago Camacho surge de un prejuicio: la creencia de que las personas religiosas son más "simples", y que la religión surge de la incapacidad de los creyentes de afrontar los "azares" del Universo. Y ésto me lleva a la siguiente reflexión. Esta idea es sólo un "escalón" intermedio del pensamiento cientifista: el diablo no existe, son los hombres; el siguiente paso es pensar que el mal no existe. En realidad, ese "escalón" intermedio no tiene sustento lógico. Esa es una conclusión a la que han llegado dos pensadores en las antípodas en cuanto a creencias religiosas: Dostoievskiy y Richard Dawkins.

Dostoievskiy lo definió perfectamente: "Si Dios no existe, todo está permitido"; si Dios no existe, si el hombre es sólo otro animal más producto "afortunado" de la evolución, la moral es tan ficticia como la idea de Dios.

Richard Dawkings, uno de los más famosos ateistas, lo explicó así:
"En un universo de electrones y genes egoístas, de fuerzas físicas ciegas y de replicación genética, algunas personas van a resultar heridas, otras serán afortunadas, y no encontraremos ninguna moraleja ni razón en ello, tampoco ninguna justicia. El universo que observamos tiene precisamente las propiedades que deberíamos esperar si, en el fondo, no hay ningún diseño, ningún propósito, ningún bien ni ningún mal, nada más que indiferencia ciega y despiadada."
Richard Dawkins, 'River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life'

Dicho de otro modo: la moralidad en el ateismo surge de la incapacidad de los ateos de afrontar los "azares" de un Universo sin Dios.

La realidad es que el mal es muy real, no importa que el demonio sea un ente independiente o una idea que represente el mal del mundo.

Pizzagate: Was There Any Truth In It?

I have stayed away from the Pizzagate because it was simply too unpleasent, but recently I saw a threat from Chris Cuomo in the documentary "Out of Shadows" (2020) that forced me to write about it.:

CNN tries to convince us it's "illegal" to read the #wikileaks emails so we have to rely on their fair and balanced coverage #PodestaEmails9 pic.twitter.com/tYDLFTi1qG

— October 16, 2016

 

Maybe what most intered me from Pizzagate and everything that surrounded it was to see if there was any truth in it. 

It is curious how the Pizzagate affair got so quickly out-of-hand, making it impossible to have a serious rational analysis of the content of Podesta's e-mails. It even seems that it was driven out-of-hand on purpose.

 

I will start by clarifying that I haven't found anything to support the theory of the hidden "pedophile code" in Podesta's e-mails. I haven't found any document prior to the Pizzagate scandal mentioning words like "cheese" or "pizza" as a code used by pedophiles (if anybody has such document, let me know in the comments).

I did find the document from the FBI from 2007 showing the triangle inside a bigger triangle as used by pedophiles, that resembles a symbol from Comet Ping Pong, but even that symbol having been used by Comet Ping Pong seems difficult to confirm now. The same goes for the alleged art that decorated the pizzeria, although here is a disturbing mural that undoubtedly decorated (decorates?) this allegedly family pizzeria.

 

What I have found is this capture of Comet Ping Pong owner, James Alefantis, Instagram that seems legit (let me know if it's not, or if you know how to find more legit captures):

 

The hashtag used in the post, #chickenlovers, is really disturbing. As you can read in this article from The Guardian from 2001, "chicken" is used as "sex with boys (or "chickens", as they are known on the scene". So we only have two possibilities, and there are not more: wether he thinks that being a "chicken lover" is fine, or he is making a joke. If the former is true, he should be in jail; if the latter is true, well, someone who thinks that making jokes about pedophilia is ok doesn't deserve any respect. Let's not forget that the mainstream media made turned this guy into some sort of martyr of fake news...

Another capture from Comet Ping Pong's owner Instagram (seems legit too) would proof that he was friend with Tony Podesta (whose taste in art we will later discuss):

 

 

Going back to the code, only an investigation into the whereabouts of the people involved checking them against the content of the e-mails could prove that such a code existed. 

 

Having said that, there are some things in Podesta's e-mails that are worrying.

 

You probably have heard about the "pizza for an hour" e-mail:

 

It surely is strange to use the expression "get a pizza for an hour", but you can think of an scenario were it makes sense: a lazy way of asking "Do you want to have lunch together? We can eat pizza. But I have only one hour". Of course the strange thing is that it seems they are talking about dinner (as the subject is "Re: You two free for dinner on 12 or 13 January?"), so it is a little strange to have only one hour for dinner...

 

There is however one e-mail that cannot be rationally explained. This one:

"I am popping up again to share our excitement about the Reprise of Our Gang’s visit to the farm in Lovettsville. And I thought I’d share a couple more notes: We plan to heat the pool, so a swim is a possibility. Bonnie will be Uber Service to transport Ruby, Emerson, and Maeve Luzzatto (11, 9, and almost 7) so you’ll have some further entertainment, and they will be in that pool for sure."

To create a reasonable scenario to explain this e-mail is much more harder. But let's try: a group of friends is meeting in a farm. They have a pool and they are going to heat it, so they can swim. So far, completely normal. Then someone writes that children will be there and gives the ages. Ok, maybe other children are coming or can come, and they want to tell that they will be able to play together. But then comes the first unexplainable sentence: "Bonnie will be Uber Service to transport Ruby, Emerson, and Maeve Luzzatto (11, 9, and almost 7) so you’ll have some further entertainment"... So the children are not there to play with other children, but to provide "further entertainment"... How are the children supposed to entertain those adults? And then a clarification: "they will be in that pool for sure". Why the hell a group of adults would care if the children get or not in the pool??? If other children are coming, and you want to let them know that they will be able to swim, you just write "children will be able to swim", you don't write "they will be in that pool for sure".

It seems to me that the Pizzagate conspiracy getting crazier and crazier was very convenient to avoid giving explanations about the serious concerning aspects in several of the e-mails as well as the extremely disturbing taste in art of some of the people involved (like Tony Podesta and the owner of Comet Ping Pong).

Regarding Tony Podesta, it is 100% TRUE that Podesta DID HAVE PHOTOS OF NAKED TEENAGERS:

"a bedroom at the Podesta residence hung with multiple color pictures by Katy Grannan, a photographer known for documentary-style pictures of naked teenagers in their parents' suburban homes" [The Washington Post]

Here are some examples of the art from Tony Podesta's home from Washington Life Magazine from 2015.

As many people have noticed, why did Tony Podesta and his wife have children toys in their bedroom if they don't have any children...

Check that in bedroom in this last page, there are children's toys next to the bed... But the Podesta's didn't have children.