Thursday 25th of April 2024
Home » Blogs » Gus Leonisky's blog

creepy freedom of choosing newspeak propaganda to obey big brother...

information

 

OffGuardian already covered the Global Media Freedom Conference, our article Hypocrisy Taints UK’s Media Freedom Conference, was meant to be all there was to say. A quick note on the obvious hypocrisy of this event. But, in the writing, I [Kit Knightly] started to see more than that. This event is actually…creepy.

Let’s just look back at one of the four “main themes” of this conference:

building trust in media and countering disinformation

“Countering disinformation”? Well, that’s just another word for censorship.

This is proven by their refusal to allow Sputnik or RT accreditation. They claim RT “spreads disinformation” and they “countered” that by barring them from attending. 

“Building trust”? In the post-Blair world of PR newspeak, “building trust” is just another way of saying “making people believe us” (the word usage is actually interesting, building trust not earning trust).

The whole conference is shot through with this language that just feels…off.

Here is CNN’s Christiane Amanpour:

Our job is to be truthful, not neutral…we need to take a stand for the truth, and never to create a false moral or factual equivalence.”

Being “truthful not neutral” is one of Amanpour’s personal sayings, she obviously thinks it’s clever. 

Of course, what it is is NewSpeak for “bias”. 

Refusing to cover evidence of The White Helmets staging rescues, Israel arming ISIS or other inconvenient facts will be defended using this phrase – they will literally claim to only publish “the truth”, to get around impartiality…and then set about making up whatever “truth” is convenient. 

Oh, and if you don’t know what “creating a false moral quivalence is”, here I’ll demonstrate:

MSM: Putin is bad for shutting down critical media.
OffG: But you’re supporting RT being banned and Wikileaks being shut down.
BBC: No. That’s not the same.
OffG: It seems the same.
BBC: It’s not. You’re creating a false moral equivalence.

Understand now? You “create a false moral equivalence” by pointing out mainstream media’s double standards.

Other ways you could mistakenly create a “false moral equivalence”:

  • Bringing up Gaza when the media talk about racism.
  • Mentioning Saudi Arabia when the media preach about gay rights.
  • Referencing the US coup in Venezuela when the media work themselves into a froth over Russia’s “interference in our democracy”
  • Talking about the invasion of Iraq. Ever.
  • OR Pointing out that the BBC is state funded, just like RT.

These are all no-longer flagrant examples of the media’s double standards, and if you say they are, you’re “creating a false moral equivalence”…and the media won’t have to allow you (or anyone who agrees with you) air time or column inches to disagree. 

Because they don’t have a duty to be neutral or show both sides, they only have a duty to tell “the truth”…as soon as the government has told them what that is.

Prepare to see both those phrases – or variations there of – littering editorials in the Guardian and the Huffington Post in the coming months. Along with people bemoaning how “fake news outlets abuse the notion of impartiality” by “being even handed between liars [and] the truth tellers”. (I’ve been doing this site so long now, I have a Guardian-English dictionary in my head).

Equally dodgy-sounding buzz-phrases litter topics on the agenda. 

“Eastern Europe and Central Asia: building an integrated support system for journalists facing hostile environments”, this means pumping money into NGOs to fund media that will criticize our “enemies” in areas of strategic importance. It means flooding money into the anti-government press in Hungary, or Iran or (of course), Russia. That is ALL it means.

I said in my earlier article I don’t know what “media sustainability” even means, but I feel I can take a guess. It means “save the government mouthpieces”.

The Guardian is struggling for money, all print media are, TV news is getting lower viewing figures all the time. “Building media sustainability” is code for “pumping public money into traditional media that props up the government” or maybe “getting people to like our propaganda”.

But the worst offender on the list is, without a doubt…

“NAVIGATING DISINFORMATION”

“Navigating Disinformation” was a 1 hour panel from the second day of the conference. You can watch it embedded above if you really feel the need. I already did, so you don’t have to.

The panel was chaired by Chrystia Freeland, the Canadian Foreign Minister. The members included the Latvian Foreign Minister, a representative of the US NGO Committee to Protect Journalists, and the Ukrainian Deputy Minister of Information

Have you guessed what “disinformation” they’re going to be talking about?

I’ll give you a clue: It begins with R.

Freeland, chairing the panel, kicks it off by claiming that “disinformation isn’t for any particular aim”.

This is a very common thing for establishment voices to repeat these days, which makes it all the more galling she seems to be pretending its is her original thought.

The reason they have to claim that “disinformation” doesn’t have a “specific aim” is very simple: They don’t know what they’re going to call “disinformation” yet. 

They can’t afford to take a firm position, they need to keep their options open. They need to give themselves the ability to describe any single piece of information or political opinion as “disinformation.” Left or right. Foreign or domestic. “Disinformation” is a weaponised term that is only as potent as it is vague.

So, we’re one minute in, and all “navigating disinformation” has done is hand the State an excuse to ignore, or even criminalise, practically anything it wants to. Good start.

Interestingly, no one has actually said the word “Russia” at this point. They have talked about “malign actors” and “threats to democracy”, but not specifically Russia. It is SO ingrained in these people that “propaganda”= “Russian propaganda” that they don’t need to say it.

The idea that NATO as an entity, or the individual members thereof, could also use “disinformation” has not just been dismissed…it was literally never even contemplated. 

Next Freeland turns to Edgars Rinkēvičs, her Latvian colleague, and jokes about always meeting at NATO functions. The Latvians know “more than most” about disinformation, she says.

Rinkēvičs says disinformation is nothing new, but that the methods of spreading it are changing…then immediately calls for regulation of social media.

Nobody disagrees.

Then he talks about the “illegal annexation of Crimea”, and claims the West should outlaw “paid propaganda” like RT and Sputnik. 

Nobody disagrees.

Then he says that Latvia “protected” their elections from “interference” by “close cooperation between government agencies and social media companies”.

Everyone nods along.

If you don’t find this terrifying, you’re not paying attention. They don’t say it, they probably don’t even realise they mean it, but when they talk about “close cooperation with social media networks”, they mean government censorship of social media. When they say “protecting” their elections…they’re talking about rigging them.

It only gets worse.

The next step in the Latvian master plan is to bolster “traditional media”. The problems with traditional media, he says, are that journalists aren’t paid enough, and don’t keep up to date with all the “new tricks”.

His solution is to “promote financing” for traditional media, and to open more schools like the “Baltic Centre of Media Excellence”, which is apparently a totally real thing. It’s a training centre which teaches young journalists about “media literacy” and “critical thinking”. 

You can read their depressingly predictable list of “donors” here.

I truly wish I was joking.

Next up is Courtney Radsch from CPJ – a US-backed NGO, who notionally “protect journalists”, but more accurately spread pro-US propaganda. (Their token effort to “defend” RT and Sputnik when they were barred from the conference was contemptible). She talks for a long time…without saying much at all. Her revolutionary idea is that disinformation could be countered if everyone told the truth. Inspiring.

Beata Balogova, Journalist and Editor from Slovakia, gets the ship back on course – immediately suggesting politicians should not endorse “propaganda” platforms. She shares an anecdote about “a prominent Slovakian politician” who gave exclusive interviews to a site that is “dubiously financed, we assume from Russia”. 

They assume from Russia. Everyone nods. It’s like they don’t even hear themselves.

Then she moves on to Hungary.

Apparently, Orban has “created a propaganda machine” and produced “antisemitic George Soros posters”. No evidence is produced to back-up either of these claims. She thinks advertisers should be pressured into not giving money to “fake news sites”. She calls for “international pressure”, but never explains exactly what that means.

The stand-out maniac on this panel is Emine Dzhaparova, the Ukrainian First Deputy Minister of Information Policy. (She works for the Ministry of Information – nicknamed the Ministry of Truth, which was formed in 2014 to “counter lies about Ukraine”. Even The Guardian thought that sounded dodgy.)

She talks very fast and, without any sense of irony, spills out a story that shoots straight through “disinformation” and becomes “incoherent rambling”. She claims that Russian citizens are so brainwashed you’ll never be able to talk to them, and that Russian “cognitive influence” is “toxic…like radiation.”

Is this paranoid, quasi-xenophobic nonsense countered? No. Her fellow panelists nod and chuckle.

On top of that, she just lies. She lies over and over and over again.

She claims Russia is locking up Crimean Tartars “just for being muslims”, nobody questions her.

She says the war in Ukraine has killed 13,000 people, but doesn’t mention that her side is responsible for over 80% of civilian deaths.

She says only 30% of Crimeans voted in the referendum, and that they were “forced”. A fact not supported by any polls done by either side in the last four years, and any referenda held on the peninsula any time in the last last 30 year. It’s simply a lie.

Nobody asks her about the journalists killed in Ukraine since their glorious Maidan Revolution. 

Nobody questions the fact that she works for something called the “Ministry of Information”.

Nobody does anything but nod and smile as the “countering disinformation” panel becomes just a platform for spreading total lies.

When everyone on the panel has had their ten minutes on the soapbox, Freeland asks for recommendations for countering this “threat” – here’s the list:

  1. Work to distinguish “free speech” from “propaganda”, when you find propaganda there must be a “strong reaction”.
  2. Pressure advertisers to abandon platforms who spread misinformation.
  3. Regulate social media.
  4. Educate journalists at special schools.
  5. Start up a “Ministry of Information” and have state run media that isn’t controlled, like in Ukraine.

This is the Global Conference on Media Freedom…and all these six people want to talk about is how to control what can be said, and who can say it.

They single only four countries out for criticism: Hungary, Nicaragua, Venezuela and Russia….and Russia takes up easily 90% of that.

They mention only two media outlets by name: RT and Sputnik.

This wasn’t a panel on disinformation, it was a public attack forum – a month’s worth of 2 minutes of hate. 

These aren’t just shills on this stage, they are solid gold idiots, brainwashed to the point of total delusion. They are the dangerous glassy eyes of a Deep State that never questions itself, never examines itself, and will do anything it wants, to anyone it wants…whilst happily patting itself on the back for its superior morality.

They don’t know, they don’t care. They’re true believers. Terrifyingly dead inside. Talking about state censorship and re-education camps under a big sign that says “Freedom”.

And that’s just one talk. Just one panel in a 2 day itinerary filled to the brim with similarly soul-dead servants of authority.

Truly, perfectly Orwellian.

 

 

Read more:

https://off-guardian.org/2019/07/16/newspeak-at-the-media-freedom-confer...

alternative facts...

biblio

See:

http://www.yourdemocracy.net.au/drupal/node/27640

 

alter

See:

http://www.yourdemocracy.net.au/drupal/node/32994

 

truth-ish

See:

http://www.yourdemocracy.net.au/drupal/node/34622

 

they lied...

See:

http://www.yourdemocracy.net.au/drupal/node/11276

 

 

And plenty more... 

the mainstream media gets it wrong once more...

Italy’s Deputy PM Matteo Salvini has said that an investigation into a “Ukrainian group’s” plot to kill him was what led to a major seizure of weapons, including an air-to-air missile and neo-Nazi memorabilia, by police this week.

Speaking in Genoa, Salvini told media that Italian secret services had alerted him to a Ukrainian group planning an attempt on his life and that he “flagged it up” with the police. “It was one of several death threats against me that arrive every day,” Italy’s ANSA news agency quoted him as saying. He said he was happy the threat had “served to uncover the arsenal of some madmen.”

Italian police said on Monday that a cache of weapons, including a French-made air-to-air missile, had been seized from a neo-Nazi gang operating in northern Italy. The police statement originally said the group had fought against Donbass separatists in Ukraine’s eastern breakaway region. The statement was later amended, however, to say that the extremists in question had “taken part in the armed conflict” in Ukraine, without specifying a side.

READ MORE: Italy police ALTER news on neo-Nazi missile for Ukraine after MSM misreport busted cell as pro-rebel 

Western media had a field day with the news, immediately linking the neo-Nazi gang to what they said were “Russia-backed separatists,” apparently misquoting the initial police statement that said just the opposite.

When contacted by RT over its misquotation, Reuters responded with a thank you “for bringing it to our attention” and corrected the story. The corrected paragraph now states that “a police official declined to say who they [the neo-Nazi group] had been fighting for.”

 

Read more:

https://www.rt.com/news/464311-salvini-ukrainian-nazis-plot/

 

Note: the neo-nazis in Ukraine have ALWAYS fought on the side of the government against Dombass....

or plain stupid lies...

On 15 July, CNN released a story on how WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange from the Ecuadorian embassy in London conspired with "Russian hackers" to thwart Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential bid. Academics and political analysts have not bought into the CNN narrative, ridiculing the "Russians did it" claim.

Citing "exclusively obtained" documents, CNN claimed that WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, who was arrested on 11 April in London, turned the Ecuadorian embassy into a "command center" to interfere in the US 2016 presidential elections and out Hillary Clinton from the presidential race with Russia's "assistance". The outlet also claimed that during his presence in the Ecuadorian Embassy, the WikiLeaks founder had some 75 visits, including those with Russian nationals, who, by the media account, had "Kremlin ties".

The cited "exclusive" documents have not been presented. As for the "Russian suspects", CNN elaborated that since they are "all living safely in Russia", the US "will likely never publicly produce a smoking gun or prove in court that Russia worked with WikiLeaks".

'CNN Should Start Publishing Spy Novels'

"So Julian Assange is a ‘puppet of the Kremlin’; this assertion spoken of anyone, especially when it is the British press in commenting on a CNN report, first makes me smile and then burst out laughing. It is of course an empty phrase used in frustration when no real evidence lies to hand. Here we go again", says Dr David William Norris, a political commentator and former teaching fellow at a college in Birmingham.

"Of course, the report is based in ‘exclusive reports’, no one will ever see them. This alone above anything else that is said is enough to cast serious doubt on these claims. CNN should give up on the news and start publishing spy novels, but even then, they would need to brush up on the plots which all see highly implausible, as they stand".

 

Read more:

https://sputniknews.com/analysis/201907171076266200-cnn-spy-assange-russ...

 

 

Read from top.

this is the same fake story from CNN...

Earlier, CNN published a report based on what it termed "exclusive documents", accusing Julian Assange of meddling in the 2016 US elections. In an interview with Sputnik, Correa shared his perspective on Assange, CNN's 'prejudice', EU-US relations and more.

Sputnik: What do you think about a CNN story claiming that Assange has meddled in the US 2016 election from Ecuadorian embassy?

Rafael Correa: It is already known. This is the same story when the US intended to invade Iraq and media, starting with CNN, created the whole campaign, claiming that there were weapons of mass destruction. So that even good people could applaud the invasion of the country and the war, which claimed more than a hundred thousand lives among civilians, not counting military personnel.

The same was made with Assange. This is all lynching in the media, this is all a show, so that when he is extradited to the US, he could be sentenced to a life term in prison, a disproportionate penalty that even good people may welcome.

It is already a commonly known strategy, an installation, concocted by certain media. We were not aware of Assange’s intelligence activities. They have not proved it in this story. It is merely a show. That there is some video footage where he walks with a bag and now they claim – they know what was inside of this bag…no, this story tells Mueller’s report. That means that CNN in its investigation uses side sources and cannot be responsible for that?

There are two things. First we were shown this. Secondly, we would not have allowed it if we knew of it. Did not prove that it really happened. The same staging that they want to prove, are the claims about spying activity from the embassy, which Assange - together with Russians - made a centre of special operation and that we allegedly knew this and protected him.

First, they have not proved it. I cannot be deceived with this show. Second, it is a lie. If there was any meddling/spying, we would know about it and would never allow it.

Sputnik: Good. So, when you told the government to cut Assange’s Internet access, it was not because you knew that he spied or meddled in US elections?

Rafael Correa: This happened because [Assange] published information that harmed the [US presidential] candidates. I don’t know how he got it. Maybe, he copied it from somewhere – how am I supposed to know? There is a difference between spying on the US Democratic Party, [working with] a Russian hacker from the Ecuadorean embassy in London, or [getting information] from the Internet. What is clear is that he sent messages that harmed Hillary Clinton. And this is wrong. We don’t like when [other countries] interfere in [our] internal affairs. I wouldn’t have liked if a foreign nation meddled in the presidential elections in Ecuador. Just like any other nation, we would not allow it, we respect other nations’ sovereignty.

Assange had been warned several times. He failed to comply with [asylum agreement] terms and continued to publish information that only harmed one side; this was not balanced information about [both] Clinton and Trump. It was only a negative information on Hillary Clinton. We could not accept it. This is why I personally ordered Assange’s internet connection to be cut on 17 October 2016, ahead of 8 November 2016 elections in the US.

 

Read more:

https://sputniknews.com/latam/201907171076277633-its-a-lie-we-never-knew-of-interference-and-would-never-allow-it----ex-ecuadoran-president-correa-/

 

Interesting...

 

 

Read from top.

and now, trump boots the rear of his intelligence...

The US director of national intelligence, Dan Coats, has become the latest high-profile figure to leave the Trump administration.

President Donald Trump tweeted Mr Coats would step down in mid-August and that he would nominate the Texan congressman John Ratcliffe to replace him. 

He said Mr Ratcliffe would lead and "inspire greatness for the country" he loved. 

Mr Coats and Mr Trump have often been at odds over Russia and North Korea.

In January the president called his intelligence chiefs passive and naive in their assessment of the threat posed by Iran.

I am pleased to announce that highly respected Congressman John Ratcliffe of Texas will be nominated by me to be the Director of National Intelligence. A former U.S. Attorney, John will lead and inspire greatness for the Country he loves. Dan Coats, the current Director, will....Image Copyright @realDonaldTrump@REALDONALDTRUMPReport

A year ago, Mr Coats laughed in surprise when he heard that the US president was going to meet Russian President Vladimir Putin for a summit in Finland. 

"That's going to be special," said an amused Mr Coats, when he was told the news at a public event. 

He later apologised for his reaction, saying "my admittedly awkward response was in no way meant to be disrespectful or criticise the actions of the president".

 

Read more:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49147365

 

 

I cannot stress enough the importance of deception in any "intelligence services" — hence the cartoon at top. My next posting will be "It is I, Leclerc!"... to expose some of the deceptions used during WW2...

 

 

Read from top.

loosing their moral pants...

Even before Rep. Tulsi Gabbard threatened to boycott the October 15th Dem debate as the DNC usurps the role of voters in the Democratic primacy 2020 election and with an impeachment inquiry against President Donald Trump on the table, the Swamp was stirred and its slimy muck may be about to come to the surface as never before.

If so, those revelations are long overdue.

It is no secret to the observant that since the 2016 election, the Democratic Party has been in a state of near-collapse, the victim of its own hubris, having lost their moral compass with unsubstantiated Russisgate allegations; those accusations continue as a futile exercise of domestic regime change.

Today’s Dems are less than a bona fide opposition party offering zero policy solutions, unrecognizable from past glories and not the same political party many of us signed up for many years ago. Instead, the American public is witnessing a frenzied, unscrupulous strategy. 

Desperate in the denial of its demise, confronting its own shadow of corruption as the Dems have morphed into a branch of the CIA – not unlike origins of the East German Stasi government.

It should not be necessary to say but in today’s hyper volatile political climate it is: No American should be labelled as anything other than a loyal American to be deeply disturbed by the Democrat/CIA collusion that is currently operating an unprecedented Kangaroo Court in secret, behind closed doors; thus posing an ominous provocation to what remains of our Constitutional Republic.

As any politically savvy, independent thinking American might grasp, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and their entire coterie of sycophants always knew that Russiagate was a crock of lies.

They lied to their willing Democratic rank n file, they lied to American public and they continue to lie about their bogus Impeachment campaign.

It may be that whistleblower Ed Snowden’s revelations about the NSA surveillance state was the first inkling for many Americans that there is a Big Problem with an out-of-control intelligence community until Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer warned that Trump was being ‘really dumb” in daring to question Intel’s faulty conclusion that Russia hacked the 2016 election.

“Let me tell you. You take on the intelligence community = they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you.”

Inescapably, Schumer was suggesting  that the Congress has no oversight, that there is no accountability and that the US has lost its democratic roots when a newly elected President does not have the authority to question or publicly disagree with any of the Intel agencies.

Since the 2016 election, there has been a steady drumbeat of the US Intel’s unabashed efforts to undermine and otherwise prevent a newly elected President from governing – which sounds like a clear case of insubordination or some might call it treasonous.

The Intel antipathy does not appear to be rooted in cuts to a favorite social services program but rather protecting a power, financial and influence agenda that goes far deeper and more profound than most Americans care to contemplate.

Among a plethora of egregious corporate media reactions, no doubt stirred by their Intel masters, was to a July, 2018 summit meetingbetween Russian President Putin and Trump in Helsinki emblematic of illegitimate censures from Intel veterans and its cronies: 

“Trump sides with Putin over US Intelligence” – CNN

“Did Trump Commit Treason at Putin Meeting?” – Newsweek, and 

“Trump Slammed Over Disgrace, Disgusting Press Conference with Putin” – Newsweek.

Not one praised Trump for pursuing peace with Russia.

And yet, fellow Americans, it is curious to consider that there was no outrage after the 911 attacks in 2001 from any member of Congress, President Bush or the Corporate Media that the US intelligence community had utterly failed in its mission to keep the American public safe.

There was no reckoning, not one person in authority was held accountable, not one person who had the responsibility to ‘know’ was fired from any of the Intel agencies. Why is that?

As a result of  the corrupt foundation of the Russiagate allegations, Attorney General Bob Barr and Special Investigator John Durham appear hot on the trail with law enforcement in Italy as they have apparently scared the bejesus out of what little common sense remains among the Democratic hierarchy as if Barr/Durham might be headed for Obama’s Oval Office.

Barr’s earlier comment before the Senate that “spying did occur’ and that ‘it’s a big deal’ when an incumbent administration (ie the Obama Administration) authorizes a counter-Intelligence operation on an opposing candidate (ie Donald Trump) has the Dems in panic-stricken overdrive – and that is what is driving the current Impeachment Inquiry.

With the stark realization that none of the DNC’s favored top tier candidates has the mojo to go the distance, the Democrats have now focused on a July 25th phone call between Trump and Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in which Trump allegedly ‘pressured’ Zelenskyy to investigate Joe Biden’s relationship with Burisma, the country’s largest natural gas provider.

At issue is any hanky panky involving Burisma payments to Rosemont Seneca Partners, an equity firm owned by Joe’s errant son, Hunter, who served on Burisma’s Board for a modest $50,000 a month.

Zelenskyy, who defeated the US-endorsed incumbent President Petro Poroshenko in a landslide victory, speaks Russian, was elected to clean up corruption and end the conflict in eastern Ukraine.  The war in the Donbass began as a result of the US State Department’s role in the overthrow of democratically elected Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych in 2014.

Trump’s first priority on July 25th was Crowd Strike, a cybersecurity firm with links to the HRC campaign which was hired by the DNC to investigate Russian hacking of its server.  

The Dems have reason to be concerned since it is worth contemplating why the FBI did not legally mandate that the DNC turn its server over to them for an official Federal forensic inspection.  

One can only speculate…those chickens may be coming home to roost.

Days after an anonymous whistleblower (not to be confused with a real whistleblower like Edward Snowden) later identified as a CIA analyst with a professional history linked to Joe Biden, publicly released a Complaint against Trump.  

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced the initiation of an ambiguous Impeachment Inquiry campaign with little specificity about the process.  The Complaint is suspect since it reads more like a professionally prepared Affidavit and the Dems consider Pelosi’s statement as sufficient to initiate a formal process that fails to follow the time-honored path of a full House vote predicating a legitimate impeachment inquiry on to the Judiciary Committee.

Of special interest is how the process to date is playing out with the House Intelligence Committee in a key role conducting what amounts to clandestine meetings, taking depositions and witness statements behind closed doors with a still secret unidentified whistleblower’s identity and voice obscured from Republican members of the Intel Committee and a witness testifying without being formally sworn in – all too eerily similar to East Germany.

The pretense of shielding the thinly veiled CIA operative as a whistleblower from public exposure can only be seen as an overly-dramatic transparent performance as the Dems have never exhibited any concern about protecting real whistleblowers like Snowden, Chelsea Manning, Bill Binney, Thomas Drake, John Kiriakou, Julian Assange, Jeffrey Sterling and others who were left to fend for themselves as the Obama Administration prosecuted more true, authentic whistleblowers than any other administration since the Espionage Act of 1917.

As the paradigm shift takes its toll on the prevailing framework of reality and our decayed political institutions, (the FBI and DOJ come to mind as the Inspector General’s report is due at  week’s end), how much longer does the Democratic Party, which no longer serves a useful public purpose, deserve to exist?

 

Read more:

https://off-guardian.org/2019/10/21/will-the-democratic-party-exist-afte...

 

Read from top.