Tag: accountability

No Matter How Often Leftism Fails, True Believers Never Face The Consequences

Perhaps the most significant factor contributing to the Soviet Union’s collapse was a resolute commitment to the infallibility of socialist ideology, coupled with its continued application long after its obvious failure. The failure to learn history and, by extension, internalize the lessons from this dark period is what enables our modern-day Marxists (whom we refer to as “leftists” or “progressives”) to believe that they can somehow avoid the consequences of the policies they promote.

Modern political history shows that these same people almost always avoid any personal liability for the destruction that they’ve wrought. In the Soviet countries, this mindset prevailed until the collapse of that abominable regime in 1991, but not before oppressing, enslaving, and murdering millions.

Unfortunately, this worldview persists even today. Adherence to ideological purity is valued above empirical evidence and objective truth, and is particularly prevalent among miseducated Western leftists who “identify as secular,” whereas those of us who believe in G-d are labeled “superstitious.” These are the archetypical “godless commies.” By traditional standards, they display appalling behavior. Fyodor Dostoyevsky, who had experience with this, once said, “If there is no G-d, everything is permitted.”

These ideologues consider their worldview incontrovertible, making them intolerant of opposing viewpoints, which they consider “lies.” As we witnessed after the June 27 debate, opposing viewpoints are also regarded as inherently sinister. The debate moderators, CNN’s Jake Tapper (“Fake Yapper”) and Dana Bash (the ex-wife of former Obama CIA Chief of Staff and DoD Chief of Staff Jeremy Bash), are two such godless commies, with their own histories of intolerance while feigning virtue.

Such cadres concentrate (and flourish) in institutions such as academia, government, non-profit/activist organizations, think tanks (producing few original ideas), and political and other organizations where ideological purity has replaced merit as the basis for career advancement. Here, ideas need not be empirically proven to receive perpetual funding. This explains how Democrats often “fail upward,” also known as “The Peter Principle” (people rise to the level of their incompetence). Biden, Harris, Blinken, and Jake Sullivan are prime examples.

Keep reading

Who are all the bad sources and why is the media still protecting them?

The past few years are riddled with examples of major media outlets relying on anonymous sources for “blockbuster” stories— only to have the information be proven wrong. 

Yet there’s been little to no accountability.

Most recently it’s the cacophony of admissions by media, including The Washington Post, that falsely declared (early and often) the Covid-19 lab origin theory was “debunked.” They received ample support in for the misinformation from Facebook, Twitter, Google and public health officials such as Dr. Anthony Fauci.

Before that, there were notable corrections by NBC, The New York Times and The Washington Post on another major story. The news outlets had to correct their false reporting about Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani. The articles all claimed that prior to 2019 political scandals involving the U.S., Russia and Ukraine, Giuliani and/or the conservative news channel One America News had received a “former warning from the FBI about Russian disinformation.” However, story revisions in May later stated that Giuliani and One America News did not receive such so-called “defensive briefings,” after all.

Looking at the news organizations and bylines responsible for the errors, we can see repeat offenders. Some of the same players have made the same sorts of egregious reporting mistakes over and over again, yet go on to make more as if no lessons were learned from the previous. And as I’ve documented, when the media gets caught having publicized the worst kind of false information, instead of issuing a mea culpa and apologies, the offenders often double down and revise the original terms of the story to make it seem as if the false information didn’t matter at all.

Keep reading