"Now the MSM has become Orwell’s Minitrue, dedicating to suppressing information the proles aren’t allowed to hear."

The New Neo writes,

if that was in fact their big pre-election concern – that Trump would falsely accuse the Democrats of cheating, and throw the post-election transition into an uproar – what would be the best way to prevent that and reassure the American people that all was actually on the up-and-up with the vote? Why, make sure the voting process was hyper-secure and hyper-protected against fraud or even the suspicion of fraud. What did the Democrats do instead? They mounted a full-court press to relax the voting rules in ways that were bound to cause suspicion.

New Neo links to the now famous Time Magazine article by Molly Ball which bragged about how the left stole the election.

They got states to change voting systems and laws and helped secure hundreds of millions in public and private funding. They fended off voter-suppression lawsuits, recruited armies of poll workers and got millions of people to vote by mail for the first time. They successfully pressured social media companies to take a harder line against disinformation and used data-driven strategies to fight viral smears… In the end, nearly half the electorate cast ballots by mail in 2020, practically a revolution in how people vote. About a quarter voted early in person. Only a quarter of voters cast their ballots the traditional way: in person on Election Day.

New Neo then goes on to elaborate,

They instituted a nationwide, state-by-state lawfare push for the relaxation of these rules and the implementation of an avalanche of mail-in votes, a voting method known world-round to be inherently less secure than in-person ballots, some of it in states woefully unprepared to institute such a system in time. They relaxed other rules connected with signature verification, postmarks, and the like. All objections to this were to be labeled “voter-suppression.” And funny thing, although COVID was used as an excuse (successfully, in most cases) for these changes, the changes actually matched a Democrat wish-list for voting that long predated COVID and many had been part of the first bill the House had passed after the 2018 election. So no, this was not a reaction to COVID, although its legal success was enabled by COVID.

So, while they claim to have been motivated in this huge conspiratorial enterprise by the idea of protecting the public from believing in Trump’s obviously-bogus fraud claims of the future, they simultaneously made those claims far more credible. They also made it far more possible to actually accomplish voting fraud.

Doesn’t that seem just a bit paradoxical?

As for the suppression of information they deem false, who made them the judge of that? Once upon a time it was thought that getting to the truth dictated the free expression of ideas – that the answer to a bad argument was a better one, and the response to false facts was to prove them false and counter with the truth. Saying “pay no attention to that man behind the curtain” was unacceptable, especially for news outlets. Now the MSM has become Orwell’s Minitrue, dedicating to suppressing information the proles aren’t allowed to hear.

Read more here.