The Exodus (or: Giuliani vs The Machine)

Dear H,

Rudy Giuliani says that Dominion, the software company that ran the elections in our swing states, is actually a front company for Smartmatic.  The reason this is important is because Smartmatic is a company based in Venezuela; and beyond this, a company known globally for throwing elections.  The Washington Post and other outlets are calling him a liar.  But the outlets also called Joe Biden the President, despite the fact that massive lawsuits, in Pennsylvania and Michigan, over unconstitutional measures and voter fraud, could easily throw the election for Donald.  They know it and won't say it.

One question here is, why not believe Giuliani?  Giuliani is a long-time politician, deeply entrenched not only in the world of voting, but, in a US increasingly harried by government intervention, in the world of business.  He knows more businessmen than actual businessmen do because if businessmen don't know politicians, the politicians could strangle their businesses.  He knows their lobbyists and CEOs and many of their thinkers, tinkers, back-door deal-men and sleazebags.  Is it unlikely he has no insider information, totally hidden from the public?  Isn't it possible he knows somebody we don't know, who says things we don't hear?

The big media has its ear to the ground too, but it chooses when to put its mouth to the megaphone.  We know it knows things and won't tell us.  Such as, during a year when blacks were portrayed like candidates in The Hunger Games, that the black-on-white crime rate was actually far worse; or that Donald Trump took big steps in fighting the sexual trafficking of children; or that Antifa is attacking grandmas willy-nilly after MAGA rallies (we have pictures).  The list goes on and their silence (not to sound trite) is deafening. They do "all the news that's fit to print" and apparently anything that benefits Republicans, or Trump, or white people, or Bible-believing Christians, or harms the left-wing in any way whatsoever, isn't fit.   

But beyond this there are things big media won't be told.  In fact a left-wing reporter is probably the last person to hear about it.  We heard investigative reporting is almost dead due to tight budgeting, first of all; but you can't just go up to a front company and ask whether it's a front company for a worse company.  At least you won't get a straight answer, because the purpose of a front company is to not look like the actual company.  The bigger the company, the more accountants and lawyers they put into hiding it.  And both Dominion and Smartmatic are big companies.  

Consider that The Washington Post had an answer to Giuliani almost immediately.  No deep digging, no following the money, no sleuth's hat and magnifying glass, which could take days and possibly even weeks -- just an answer*.  Almost the day after Giuliani said it, an answer.  A call to the company and a quick chat and a thank-you, probably, and the end not just of a potentially inconvenient fact, but a game-changer, an election swinger, an attack on all electronic voting, an expose on international corporations, and probably the story of the year -- in a year full of big and horrible stories.  Every informed person knows electronic voting is hackable and bug-ridden -- apparently except the people who, in this election at least, completely benefited from it.  Is this suspicious?  Or lucky?  

The picture that got KingFreeSpeech banned
And this brings us to the second point.  We're telling each other it's not luck, and the fat cats, who clearly benefit from its being "luck," are trying to shut us up.  Facebook and Twitter and Instagram, the three juggernauts of mass communication, have gotten in bed with big media, and now all the news that's fit to print is all the truth that's fit to say.  People are being banned for trying to sift new information and share it.  I've personally seen accounts blocked not when a man threatens violence on antifa, but when he posts pictures of antifa using violence against him.  (One man among many, a public celebrity known as Philip Anderson to his friends and KingFreeSpeech to his fans, had his teeth knocked out and was called a n-gger by white radicals.  He posted a picture with his face bloodied and teeth hanging and was almost immediately banned from Instagram.  I repeat, one man among many.  I, Hypocrite, a Facebook page which simply posts pictures of leftists being leftists, has been deleted several times and is constantly on the ropes.  Garbage Human, which does exactly the same thing, is gone).

So the question isn't whether we can trust Giuliani.  The question is what other options do we have than well-connected individuals?  How can we just write him off as a conspiracy theorist when anything that benefits the right-wing isn't just banned from the news, but from sharing with friends?  Nobody with a brain, knowing what we know, could expect anything other than conspiracy.  When your story can't be told you're plainly being conspired against; and the truth-teller, the story-breaker, the prophet and the investigator are suddenly not the people we counted on to deliver news for generations, but random men and women, here and there, trusted by fans for delivering it, brave for wading into the maelstrom, putting their lives and jobs and families in danger, shouting dangerous, terrifying messages we need and know we need to survive, and having video evidence to back it -- in other words, the kinds of men and women responsible for making big media big in the first place.  Interesting people, intelligent people, people who don't trust rich people, people whose mistrust turns into theorizing about people, into asking questions about people, into spying on people.  Adventurers in mystery and uncoverers of conspiracy.  What we knew in better days as journalists.

These brave folks are all going to Parler and MeWe; and now the giants of big and social media, realizing they're about to be challenged by the new newsmen and women of a distrustful public, are calling for government intervention.  And Joe Biden, if he can pull it off, is going to give it to them.  As we heard from Politico and the New York Times, his plan is to hold companies responsible for things users post -- thereby shutting off all refuges of communication to anyone suspicious of the "official" narratives. 

So the exodus has begun.  The question is, are we going to the Promised Land -- or is Pharaoh going to drag us back to Egypt?  I don't believe I'm exaggerating when I say the safety of our republic depends on whether our aunts are allowed to share silly stories -- because in the end, the story that all the big-wigs call silly is the one that's going to make or break us.



*Perhaps most comically in WaPo's "refutation" of Giuliani is their insistence that the government said there was no fraud.  They literally went, in the middle of what looks like a national conspiracy, to the main webpage for The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, looked for the bold lettering, and asked why Giuliani didn't stop there.  They said they were tempted to stop there themselves.  An accusation of a conspiracy and temptation at a government webpage.  

It gets better.  When the government's official answer didn't suffice for him, they went straight to Dominion's website.  There they found a handy Q&A about Dominion's ownership, and Dominion disavowed ties to anybody of consequence, all the way from Nancy Pelosi to Jesus Christ.  They furthermore denied any political leanings.  But isn't Dominion's parent company chaired by a Soros crony? Sounds like a right-wing dog whistle, they said.  Soros only "makes grants to civil rights groups" -- an awfully sanitized way of saying BLM burned our cities down this year, and had hundreds of millions of Soros dollars to do it.  

Of course we don't trust these people.  We're older than 12 and we can read what they say.

But sometimes you can trust them, and even when they're being honest they're being sleazy.  This morning I woke up and read a letter from the New York Times.  They said progressives have a massive problem (again), and that even in California, where white people are outnumbered two-to-one, they can't seem to get rid of human intelligence, or dignity, or fairness.  In fact, they mentioned that every time race-based hiring, promoting, and admissions get put on the ballot, they lose; and they don't just lose, they get trounced.  Every single Hispanic majority county shot it down in a landslide.  And across the US the trend seems to hold steady.  And I quote: "Affirmative action’s losing streak is part of a larger issue for Democrats: America is more culturally conservative than progressives wish it were. Many voters — across racial groups — are moderate to conservative on affirmative action, abortion, guns, immigration and policing." 

So what The New York Times suggested was brilliant.  They said that everyone knows affirmative action benefits black people and Hispanics unfairly.  It's implied they simply can't compete, in the worlds of white-collar business and academia, with Indians (from India), or Jews, or Whites, or Asians.  So why not disguise it as Medicaid expansion, or "baby bonds," or higher minimum wages -- which win even in MAGA states such as Florida?  Why not make it look race-neutral "on its face" (quote) -- but find ways to leave the receipt with the Asians?  A brilliant maneuver, and, if I was black or a darker-skinned Hispanic, a slap in the face.

Like these essays?  Email me at and start your subscription today.

Support the Letters by sending a gift to or