The NYP Reporter who Broke the Hunter Biden Laptop Story Speaks Out
Emma-Jo Morris, the reporter who broke the Hunter Biden Laptop story for the New York Post had a few things to share with Congress.
Emma-Jo Morris, the reporter who broke the Hunter Biden Laptop story for the New York Post had a few things to share with Congress.
Ten years ago, it was easy to find liberals who opposed war, authoritarian tactics and censorship. Good luck finding "liberals" who take those positions now, case in point being the authoritarian tactics most liberals strongly supported during COVID. The positions of most liberals have dramatically shifted, in lockstep with the positions of the DNC. One result is that I am politically homeless. I am pessimistic that the United States will ever figure itself out, that it will ever again treasure free speech.
Two months ago, an active tenured law professor recently told me that the First Amendment was a good idea at the time and the Founders were well-intentioned, but we now need to allow government control of misinformation and disinformation. He trusts the FBI and the CIA to tell us what is true.
What?? What's going on? I've been struggling to figure things out. So has Matt Taibbi.
The following are excerpts from Matt Taibbi's speech at the "Freedom Fest" last week in Memphis. Taibbi's entire speech is published by Taibbi at Racket News. The following are excerpts:
It wasn’t hard to understand why the FBI was organizing a censorship scheme, or why companies like Twitter and Facebook that lived off lucrative regulatory subsidies were going along with one. The motives of the powerful actors in all this were never mysterious. The part that didn’t compute was why so many in the general public were accepting of the situation. This included people I knew. Many people in America are not just accepting of digital censorship, they believe it to be vitally necessary.
Learned Hand . . . wrote in 1944, “Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it.” Justice Hand had a hard time defining this thing that “lies in the hearts of men and women.” But, as an American, I believe I experienced it growing up. As [Former President of the ACLU], Nadine [Strossen] said, it’s that “right not to remain silent,” something in which I believed almost religiously. It was something fiery and motivational, which I felt gave me an advantage over people from other parts of the world ...
[I]f that spirit of liberty Justice Hand talked about dies, no amount of lawsuits or congressional hearings will revive it. In their book [The Canceling of the American Mind], [Greg] Lukianoff and [Rikki] Schlott suggest that just as a person’s natural instinct is to slouch, society’s natural instinct is to censor. Is that true?
If so, that would make the last few hundred years of our history, a history of defiant political movements, astounding scientific invention, and vast outpourings of great music, art, literature, movies, even standup comedy — it would all be an aberration. But why? ...
I spent months thinking about this. It troubled me from the beginning of the Twitter Files story. Now, I believe Americans are not just being censored. I believe there’s an equivalent effort on the front end of Internet culture to rob people of their will to be free. I believe this is is the hardest part of the Internet censorship story to understand, but also the most crucial and most dangerous...
As we found in the Twitter Files, we lean more and more on machines to do our thinking for us. However, the worst part is, we often do not distinguish between thinking that is ours, and thinking that is someone else’s.
We Americans once cherished independence, and lived off folk tales about going off on one’s own, on the open road. Think about Ishmael, or Huck and Jim, or Chuck Berry, who picked up a guitar and sang about setting out with “no particular place to go,” creating a dazzling sound that touched a nerve with the whole world.
That was then. Now instead of giving the world something invigorating and freeing like rock n’ roll, we’re exporting mass neurosis. At home we’ve become afraid to walk even a few steps without our electronic helpers. Our sense of self is now inextricably tied to a huge global entourage of prying commentators who live in those phones of ours that are always in our pockets and whose good opinion we never stop seeking, whether we admit it or not.
This was never us before. We long celebrated the individual, even if the individual was crazy...
The freethinker was always a cherished archetype.
But thinking for yourself is hard work, and political interests in the Internet age have preyed on another very American instinct: laziness. Their sophisticated programs begin with the premise that the Internet always punishes difference and rewards conformity. This is the core principle at work in shadow-banning and de-amplification algorithms. These automated surveillance tools look for phrases like “Open-minded” or “I like to do my own research” or “I’m generally apolitical” and don’t score the people saying such things as tolerant, creative freethinkers.
What the algorithm instead detects is someone harboring a dangerous willingness to embrace unorthodox ideas, or look at a forbidden thing and not flee.
It was once a virtue for Americans to say, when asked about their politics, “None of your damn business.”
Nobody thinks that way anymore, either. Young people especially are worried to the point of mental illness about their likes and ratios. We not only want people to know what we think, we’re terrified of people not knowing what we think, lest we be suspected of harboring something unsavory underneath.
This is how it is for Americans trying to be themselves now. First they became addicted to the Internet as a tool of convenience. Then it became a cheap substitute for real-life interaction. Finally they learned to submit to the wisdom of crowds, which on the Internet, as we also found out, is really an artificial representation of a crowd, generated by political and social engineers from the FBI, DHS, the Pentagon, Meta, Google, and other bureaucracies. These groups are letting loose algorithms on that “Spirit of liberty” Justice Hand talked about. The results have not been good.
If they can preemptively extinguish that fire in us, formal censorship will become unnecessary. The population will become too fearful of difference to ever risk punishment in the first place...
Google interferes with a U.S. presidential election. Pro-censorship U.S. corporate media doesn't give a shit.
In the meantime, so-called "civil rights" groups and the Washington Post want to help us by censoring us.
Consider the haunting opening lines to the 2010 BBC documentary, "The Power of Nightmares":
In the past, politicians promised to create a better world. They had different ways of achieving this. But their power and authority came from the optimistic visions they offered to their people. Those dreams failed. And today, people have lost faith in ideologies. Increasingly, politicians are seen simply as managers of public life. But now, they have discovered a new role that restores their power and authority. Instead of delivering dreams, politicians now promise to protect us from nightmares. They say that they will rescue us from dreadful dangers that we cannot see and do not understand.
Ten years ago, I found this intense documentary online. Over the years, the links to the documentary keep breaking and I have fixed them at least twice. You can now view the entire work here. Also here is the full script.
What would motivate a phalanx of high-paid government-financed experts to protect us from a never ending procession of alleged nightmares? How about job security. More specifically, now that Middle East terrorism is no longer looming as a threat to Americans, how about drumming up the new threat of misinformation/malinformation/dysinformation? How about funding huge bureaucracies of highly paid experts to protect us from each other? Notice that they have now turn our suspicions and paranoia toward each other, a disgraceful tactic in a country founded on the principle that we the citizens are in charge and it is our duty as self-rulers to interact and negotiate with each other to find solutions to complex problems. To feed their coffers, they have found a gift that keeps on giving, the concept of "misinformation," ignoring that this concept is comically vague, in other words, perfectly suited for instigating Americans to form circular firing squads.
See the latest example, “They're searching for fears to tap into," article at Public by an excellent journalist, Lee Fang. Here is an excerpt:
Smith: So when you're talking about this mission creep, do you think that this is just an example of the government just trying to grab power increasingly or do they seem to have some sort of position that they're creeping towards intentionally, if that makes sense, like some sort of policy or what?
Fang: Bureaucracies tend to be self-perpetuating. We see this in a number of areas. The military is certainly an example of this. It's difficult to wind down major military programs to cancel or roll back major military conflicts. Even with wars ending and conflicts ending and winding down in Iraq and Afghanistan, oversized military budgets seem to only grow and grow. There's no peace dividend when these conflicts end. And the same is the case with the Department of Homeland Security. This agency has grown and grown.
And even as the threat of Islamic terrorism from Al-Qaeda or ISIS has radically waned in recent years, has gone down, this agency needs to justify its existence. So it's searching for new threats, searching for new fears to tap into, and coming up with new justifications for this enlarged bureaucracy and variety of government contractors. It's shifting from protecting against overseas terror threats to focusing on social media censorship. And that seems like a radical progression, but it helps justify the duration and expansion of these agencies.
Why have I (and many other Americans) lost so much faith in American public health officials and institutions? Well, there was the official narrative that we heard from government officials, something like, "The vaccine is safe. Take it. Or else you will be socially ostracized, perhaps fired from your job." Matt Orfalea's mashup illustrates that official narrative:
On the other hand, consider the testimony of Dr. Peter McCullough in the Pennsylvania Senate. You will learn about massive conflicts of interest among public health institutions, including the CDC and the FDA. You will hear that there was no independent organization dedicated to patient safety of the vaccines, which is ghastly. McCullough discusses the VAERS risk signal associated with the vaccines, which has been corroborated by subsequent studies.
McCullough testifies that 5% of Americans have suffered permanent disability, primarily stroke and neurologic disability as a result of taking the mRNA vaccine (min 27). He discusses the use of therapeutics for those detrimentally affected by the mRNA vaccine, including the use of the supplement called Nattokinase and other natural substances that seem to dissolve the spike protein that is already in the human body (discussed at min 27). Throughout this video you will hear his descriptions of a hubristic network of government "experts" and pharmaceutical manufacturers who are withholding data and refusing to enter into wide-open no-limits discussions regarding potential adverse affects of the COVID vaccines.
Why are some Americans having adverse affects regarding the vaccines while others are not? McCullough cites to a new R-Squared analysis study tracing problems to certain batches of the vaccines (and not others) (min 22). About 1/3 of people who received Batch 1 and report no side effects. Almost 2/3 of of people took Batch 2 and had side effects, but very few serious side-effects. About 4.2% of Americans received Batch 3, the bad batches and about 75% of those people receiving the bad batch have health issues related to the vaccine. Why? McCullough suggests that there was a "product manufacturing problem." Either hyper-concentrated lipid nano-particles with an excessive amount of messenger RNA or CDNA contamination or other types of contamination.
I am not an expert, so I have no ability to evaluate McCullough's claims, but I listened closely as he cited to recent studies. What he is saying very much concerns me. At a minimum, how was it that experimental vaccines that never received standard testing labeling (with package inserts) were foisted (often under duress) on Americans via the Emergency Use Authorization?
And again, why are we not seeing wide discussion of these issues? Why, instead, are we seeing suspicious activities by public health officials, things like this?