David French Goes There: "The GOP Has a Grassroots Problem"

In other words: The problem with the GOP is GOP voters.

This article is for members only, and there's no way I'm giving them my credit card information. They'd dox me within the hour.

If anyone knows anyone who is a "member" of this oligarch's PR operation, please send me the full article.

Bertold Brecht's "Die Losung" (The Solution) was intended to be a nasty joke, not a political agenda:

After the uprising of the 17th of June
The Secretary of the Writers' Union
Had leaflets distributed on the Stalinallee [a street]
Stating that the people
Had forfeited the confidence of the government
And could only win it back
By increased work quotas. Would it not in that case be simpler
for the government
To dissolve the people
And elect another?

GOP voters have forfeited the confidence of the Conservative, Inc. grifter class that misleads, deludes, and perverts it.

We will have to double our work quotas to regain the confidence of David French and his oligarch backers!

By the way, on Wednesday or Thursday, Steven Hayes appeared on his college roommate Bret Baier's show to gang up, 3-1, with Harold Ford Jr. against Mollie Hemingway in defending FaceBook's right to ban Trump forever.

Steven Hayes failed to disclose that The Dispatch has a financial relationship with FaceBook.

I do not expect his college roommate Bret Baier to make this disclosure on his behalf.

Today David French also defends FaceBook to the utmost -- also "forgetting" to note that The Dispatch has a financial relationship with FaceBook.

This is, of course, very common on the grifter Oligarch Services right. They're almost all paid, either directly or indirectly through a pass-through money-laundering front group by AEI, by corporations looking to have very specific propaganda messages put out to the grifter's readers.

I've said this before, but if you read these corporate-paid grifter propagandists, realize that you are not the client. You are the product. When Steven Hayes and Jonah Goldberg and Rich Lowry go shaking their cup to get "investors" or donors, they are specifically telling the would-be donors how many people they reach.

This is the same way that TV networks gin up interest in advertising on their shows: They tell advertisers how many homes and eyeballs they'll be pumped into if they take out ads on their shows.

Steven Hayes, Rich Lowry, Jonah Goldberg, David French all advertise what their "reach" is, to get corporate interests to fund them.

And the corporations, of course, can expect some... favorable interpretations of their actions from these corrupt organizations.

Say, remember when Perdue Phara paid shills at AEI to plant positive stories about the wonderdrug Oxycontin?

And then AEI started producing cash-on-the-barrelhead "independent" opinion pieces like this?

And holding symposia about defending Perdue Phrama from charges of "overly aggressive marketing" of the highly addictive morphine derivative?

By the way: It is not merely alleged that Perdue Pharam paid AEI to plant favorable stories about its addictive morphine derivative Oxycontin.

They pled guilty to federal charges in the case, and paid a fine of $8 billion.

And also agreed to shut down as a company.

But the various members of the Conservative, Inc. grifter class will tell you that they don't have to do even the most minimal possible action towards transparency and honesty by merely disclosing their financial ties to big corporations that they write about.

They'll claim they're so self-evidently honest and incorruptible, it would only serve to confuse readers to mention that they are being paid by the corporations who are literally keeping a roof over their heads and putting food in their mouths.

Now, why does it turn out that The Dispatch (taking money from FaceBook) and National Review (now "sponsored" by FaceBook) always take pro-FaceBook opinions?

Why, it's sheerest coincidence!, they'll aver. It just so happens that their Eternal Immutable Principles just happen to always coincide perfectly with the week-to-week messaging requirements of their sponsors, donors, and investors!

And they will continue refusing even the most basic step of transparency and honesty -- shit that anyone would call out if anyone else did it -- of simply noting their financial relationship with the industries and corporate entities they cover.

They simply refuse to admit they might have a financial conflict of interest when it comes to defending and promoting the corporate interests of the companies paying them cash money for "independent journalism."

Why? Well to hide the fact that they're on the take, and also to make them more useful to their corporate donors. Their corporate donors wouldn't get as much bang for the buck if everytime National Review, The Dispatch, or the Bulwark flacked for them those organizations admitted, "by the way, we're taking money directly from this company we're defending."

So they just remain silent.

And they never get called on it, because they have constructed a protective bubble for themselves in which the only critics they will even consider responding to are those also on the corporate PR grift, and therefore, those who themselves have a monetary interest in keeping this subject off-limits.

Although Heritage is itself part of the grifter pseudoright, they have recently announced that, due to Google's and FaceBook's ceaseless war on conservatives, they would no longer accept money (bribes, really) from Big Tech.

National Review refuses to take this step.

The Dispatch refuses to take this step.

The Bulwark refuses to take this step.

Obviously, AEI, which is just a pass-through funding mechanism by which corporations can give money to conservative "thinkers" without there being a formal connection from payer to payee, refuses to take this step.

What does that tell you?

But this is obviously all a coincidence. And, obviously, none of these people or outfits taking money from Big Tech should ever, ever disclose that they're taking money from Big Tech when they write columns or posts supporting Big Tech.

Because of Sacred Honor and Eternal Principles, you understand.

Even if they're determined to take the money with both fists -- and they are so determined -- that does not remove the obligation from making the disclosure that they have a financial arrangement with the subject of their columns.

But they refuse. They refuse and refuse and refuse some more.

Here's a possible reason why:

Because they have guilty minds. They don't want to make a disclosure of an innocent relationship because deep down, they know it's not innocent at all.

And if you disagree:

Well, make no mistake, the GOP has a real problem, and that problem is the grassroots voters who question arrangements like this.

Grassroots Problem"&bodytext=In other words: The problem with the GOP is GOP voters. This article is for members only, and there's no way I'm giving them my credit card information. They'd dox me within the hour. If anyone knows anyone who is...&topic=world_news"> posted by Ace at 03:08 PM

| Access Comments