November 08, 2020

Joe Biden

Joe Biden

Source: Bigstock

The Week’s Gaudiest, Bawdiest, and Voter-Fraudiest Headlines

The bitter stench of Joe Biden’s duplicitous campaign is well-seasoned with curry. Turns out while every leftist media hack and his retarded cousin were harping on the tired and largely baseless “Russian bots help Trump” theme, ol’ Joe was the one actually getting the bot assists, though not from Russia.

Not even from China (the Chinese figure that with all the money they’ve funneled to Biden and his kin, they’ve helped enough).

It actually makes a certain kind of sense that Biden, a D.C. sewer-dweller, has been pulled up by his bot-straps by the nation of open sewers and insta-potties (anywhere you crouch becomes a toilet): India.

According to a Zenger News investigative report released several days before the election, some sneaky little devil acting on Team Biden’s behalf contracted with “troll farms” in New Delhi and Mumbai to create several hundred thousand (more than 100,000 in August alone) fake pro-Biden Twitter accounts.

According to the Zenger report, the massive operation to supply phony Biden “amplifiers” was structured so that the guy at the top—the person paying for the service, the “Big Sahib”—was impossible to trace. In the words of Yajpal Yadav, who ran one of the Biden bot farms from Patna (population 3.4 million, so a small town by Indian standards):

We don’t pick and choose. Joe Biden the person is irrelevant to us. We got a target in August to follow him and engage with his tweets, and we did. The agencies in Delhi who we work with don’t tell us any details, and we don’t ask. There are so many levels of subcontractors in this, nobody can really trace anything back. We don’t even get paid through banks. We settle in cash once a month.

Yadav told Zengers that thanks to the money he made fabricating Biden followers, “I don’t have to ever worry about a roof on my head or about paying my children’s school fees.”

Hell, Yadav even has a toilet in his house. Sure, there’s no plumbing, but why nitpick?

Another Biden bot sweatshop proprietor, Harshit Patel, told Zenger that Twitter’s two-factor authentication safeguards were circumvented with stolen IDs.

That is indeed something harsh.

Oddly enough, Twitter, which bans and sanctions Trump-supporting accounts at will and for the flimsiest of reasons, has taken no punitive measures against the fake Biden accounts. It’s almost like those vaunted Twitter rules of conduct only apply to one political side and not the other.

You don’t say.

In one of the most potentially beneficial social experiments of the year, the good lunatics of Oregon decided on Tuesday to effectively legalize all street drugs. Yes, by a margin of over 60%, Oregon voters decided that from now on the people of that hellish state can indulge all they want in heroin, cocaine, methamphetamine, ecstasy, LSD, psilocybin, methadone, and oxycodone. If you’re caught with any of those substances, the state will politely ask if you would care to attend a substance-abuse rehab seminar. And you’ll be absolutely free to say no.

Measure 110 also eliminates the notion of “felony” drug possession.

The measure was backed by Mark Zuckerberg (a.k.a. the featureless alien pod baby from Invasion of the Body Snatchers) and his wife, Priscilla Chan (a.k.a. John Lone in M. Butterfly but not nearly as attractive). The originator of the measure was, of course—because who else?—George Soros (a.k.a. “the Nazis’ most unforgivable sin was not killing the one Jew who truly deserved to die”).

“It’s almost like those vaunted Twitter rules of conduct only apply to one political side and not the other.”

Journalists covering the passage of Measure 110 were baffled by the widespread support the measure enjoyed in the state’s remaining Republican strongholds, like Jackson and Curry counties in Southern Oregon. Perhaps the people in those areas, having witnessed the incurable brain sickness of the state’s big-city youth, decided that the best course of action is to allow the Antifa and BLM thugs to slowly kill themselves with narcotics.

At the very least, there might be an understanding that keeping the lunatics stoned 24/7 could limit their ability to wreak widespread havoc. One can imagine that from this point on, when those useless eaters invade a residential suburban neighborhood, the locals will simply hand out bowls of opioids like Halloween candy, to mellow out the high-strung tantrum-throwing toddler terrorists.

There are other, more permanent ways that Measure 110 can improve the quality of life for the remaining smattering of decent Oregonians. Now that dangerous narcotics will be free and readily available in the state, there may be some benefit to be had by setting up a fund to distribute, free of charge to all Portland residents under 30, copies of Final Exit, the book that was briefly banned from several bookstore chains in the 1990s because it features yummy recipes for narcotic-based drinks that lead to the best high, like, ever, followed by the longest sleep, like, ever.

Such a fund would surely attract supporters from all over the nation…and perhaps even Mr. Zuckerberg might chip in a few bucks, in the spirit of his whole “war on humanity” thing.

Well, this is awkward…

Remember that time (two weeks ago) when the pope announced his support for same-sex unions? Remember how he announced it in a new documentary film—a profile of the pontiff—that was produced and directed by an Israeli Jew named Evgeny Afineevsky?

Seemed like an odd story, right? A pope breaks with Vatican doctrine in an exclusive “confessional” made to an Israeli Jew of Russian ancestry who had never expressed any previous interest in matters of Catholicism.

Odd, indeed. And, it turns out, not as straightforward as originally depicted.

This gets a little complicated.

So there was this monsignor named Dario Edoardo Viganò who, in 2015, was named by Pope Francis as head of the newly created Vatican Secretariat for Communications. Basically, Viganò would become Popehat Goebbels, the dude whose job would be to effectively communicate the pope’s message at home and abroad. But Viganò was given his popey pink slip in 2018 after it was discovered that he’d altered a letter from the previous pope, Benedict XVI, to remove the German ex-pontiff’s concerns that Francis was associating with some anti-papal activist authors.

Turns out Viganò was the one who told Pope Francis, “Hey, you know what would be a great idea? Do a documentary with that Russian-Jewish Israeli guy!”

And now it turns out those same-sex-union comments might not have been what they seemed. As detailed by Vatican authority John Allen on the website Crux (which covers all things Vatican):

Pope Francis makes comments about civil unions for same-sex persons that created a global media frenzy, reported as the first time a pope explicitly had endorsed civil unions. It also appeared to directly contradict a 2003 document from the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, prepared by the future Pope Benedict XVI and approved by St. John Paul II, warning that such laws are “gravely unjust” and insisting that Catholics may never support them. Within 48 hours, however, the narrative began to shift, because it emerges that those comments aren’t one continuous statement from Pope Francis, but rather a montage of lines uttered in different contexts stitched together and covered by strategically timed camera cut-aways. One Italian analyst claimed yesterday there were five separate elements of film, and therefore at least four edits, contained in that twenty-second span, which has to be some kind of record. Moreover, it’s now also seemingly clear that the bit on civil unions didn’t come from Afineevsky’s conversations with Pope Francis but a different interview the pontiff gave eighteen months ago, to renowned Mexican journalist Valentina Alazraki—who’s almost as much of an institution in Rome as the papacy—but from which, for some as-yet unclear reason, the line about civil unions had been edited out when the interview was released in 2019.

Are you following? The same-sex-union comments were apparently spliced together, Simpsons “Rock Bottom”-style. So Papa Francis doesn’t support same-sex unions.

Not so fast. Per Allen:

There’s just one problem: The Vatican hasn’t denied that Pope Francis supports civil unions, despite the fact that for the last 48 hours a global impression has been created that he does. Not only has the Vatican not disputed the contents of the film, last night Afineevsky received the “Kineo Movie for Humanity” award in the Vatican Gardens in the presence of senior Vatican communications officials, an indirect seal of approval if ever there was one.

Following now? Don’t be too sure. Turns out the pope may indeed have endorsed same-sex unions in that Mexican interview, and the Vatican interceded to have the comments redacted, not expecting the Mexicans to give the redacted footage to the Jewish guy for his documentary.

On top of that, a website representing gay Catholics basically said “the pope was talking about civil unions and we want full marriage, so who cares about any of this?”

“Who cares”…perhaps the best way to approach this ecclisiasterfuck.

It was the “gotcha” moment that wasn’t. Indeed, it was the “gotcha” moment that gotcha’d the gotcha-er. C.J. Ciaramella is a NeverTrump libertarian who believes that the anti-police fervor following the death of George Floyd didn’t go far enough. “Defund”? Bah! Americans won’t truly be free until every middle-class white guy wakes up in the morning to a golden shower from a black thief looting his home. A former leftist hack for BuzzFeed, The Washington Post, Vanity Fair, and Salon, “libertarian” Ciaramella is now Reason’s “criminal justice reporter” (that translates to “defender of criminals” in libertarianese). And boy, was this defender of criminals livid last week when Tucker Carlson dismissed the notion that “white supremacists” are a threat to peace and freedom this election season.

See, the exact DAY that Carlson made that “absurd” claim, a white man was sentenced in Louisiana for burning down three black churches. Ciaramella had the cable-news king over a barrel. He retweeted Carlson’s untenable denial of the existential threat of white supremacy, adding his own masterful scold: “A guy was just sentenced today for burning down three black churches in Louisiana. DOJ put out a press release about it.”

Yep, Carlson had stepped in it, denying the menace of white supremacy on the exact same day that the DOJ announced the sentencing of a white man who’d burned a bunch of black churches.

Or at least that’s how this would’ve played out, were it not for one small but vital factor: Ciaramella hadn’t actually read the DOJ press release he tried to throw in Carlson’s face. Turns out Churchy McArsonist isn’t a skinhead but a headbanger. Twenty-three-year-old Holden Matthews is a “black metal” musician who despises religion and decided to burn a few churches to win street cred among his fellow black metalists. For those of you fortunate enough to live lives that don’t necessitate the need to know what “black metal” is, it’s an extreme form of heavy metal that’s defined by its anti-Christianity. In the 1990s, Norwegian black metalists went on a church-burning spree that destroyed over fifty churches (including several historical landmarks). Black metalheads in Sweden soon followed suit, burning churches there, too. Black metal bands celebrated the gutted churches on their album covers. Church burnings have now become a way to gain acceptance within that community.

The DOJ specifically stated in the press release Ciaramella touted that Holden Matthews (who got 25 years in the pen) torched the houses of worship “because of the religious character of those buildings” and not because of the race of the congregants:

Matthews admitted to setting the fires because of the religious character of these buildings, in an effort to raise his profile as a “Black Metal” musician by copying similar crimes committed in Norway in the 1990s. Matthews further admitted that, after setting the third fire, he posted photographs and videos on Facebook that showed the first two churches burning. Matthews admitted that he had taken these photographs and videos in real time on his cell phone, as he watched those churches burn, and that he had posted them to Facebook in an effort to promote himself in the Black Metal community.

Even CNN admitted in its coverage of the story that the firebug was inspired by religious, not racial, hatred. Because, unlike C.J. Ciaramella, the folks at CNN actually read the facts of the case.

When you’re more incompetent than the hacks at CNN, that’s not something to tweet about.

Heads are rollin’ in France! In Évreux, a teacher was beheaded by a Muslim immigrant student for the “crime” of telling his class that the right to speak freely includes the right to draw Muhammad. And just a few days later, in Nice, another Muslim immigrant, this one carrying a Koran, murdered three people in a Catholic church while shouting, “Allahu Akbar.” (According to the BBC, one of the murdered congregants was “virtually beheaded,” which seems a rather petty description. If the head’s only attached by a few sinews, c’mon, that’s still a beheading. Perfect is the enemy of good.) Several other Muslim immigrants have been arrested or questioned in connection with the attacks.

From the moment the first head hit the pavement, The New York Times knew the exact identity of the true culprits in this decollation dernier cri. Muslim immigrants? Perish the thought! Nope, the wave of Islamist murders was brought on by the French themselves, who dared to object to Islamist murders. An Oct. 31 NYT op-ed titled “Is France Fueling Muslim Terrorism by Trying to Prevent It?” answered its own question: Yes, it is. In trying to stop wacky Muhammadans from julienning the locals, the French government marginalized jihadists, which only made them angrier.

Accept a few beheadings with grace and tolerance, proclaimed the NYT, and eventually they’ll stop on their own when the Islamists realize that as much as the native Frenchies may seem weird and unfamiliar, as the Prophet himself once said, “a stranger’s just a friend you haven’t beheaded.”

For its part, the AP also decided that the beheadings were not the fault of the Muslim loons. France had long been “inciting” such violence because of stuff that happened a hundred years ago, and because of its infernal secularism (the kind the AP cheers when it’s used to pacify Christians in the U.S.). “Why does France incite anger in the Muslim world? Its brutal colonial past, staunch secular policies and tough-talking president who is seen as insensitive toward the Muslim faith all play a role,” read an Oct. 31 tweet that met with so much online blowback, the AP deleted it and issued the following “clarification”:

Many countries champion freedom of expression and allow publications that lampoon Islam’s prophet. Why has the reaction against France been especially virulent? Its colonial past, staunch secular policies and tough-talking president all play a role. This replaces a tweet about France and the Muslim world that asked why France “incites” anger. The word was not intended to convey that France instigates anger against it.

Since the “clarification” tweet failed to capitalize the word “prophet,” several totally reasonable Muslims commented that the tweet’s author should be decapitated.

And why not? That uncapitalized word was clearly “incitement.”

It fell to Reuters to put the entire mess into perspective, in a profile of a woman named Naouelle Garnoussi, “a devout Muslim who was brought up in France, prays five times a day, enjoys her job working with local communities and covets her designer handbag.”

Mon Dieu,” the French exclaimed as one, “she loves designer handbags? I love designer handbags! That cloying calculated headline has totally persuaded me to welcome my beheaders with open arms!”

In the profile, Garnoussi goes to great lengths to explain that she embraces French secularism as much as the next person, except the part that allows people to draw Muhammad. That French secularism should be abolished and its proponents severely punished. But other than that, she’s totally on board with the French secularism thing. And she represents no threat to the French people. Unless they draw Muhammad. In which case, better not wear your finest turtleneck, because it’s gonna get ruined.

Liberté, égalité, decapité!


Sign Up to Receive Our Latest Updates!